What is sovereign citizen movement/?what does Holla Forums think about it...

youtube.com/watch?v=_WODYosI9as
what is sovereign citizen movement/?what does Holla Forums think about it?is it really involved behindbaton rouge police shooting?

Other urls found in this thread:

dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/online/fee_calc/vehdef
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

AM I BEING DETAINED OFFICER
YOU DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT
I'M ALLOWED TO DO THAT
YOUR POLICE MANUAL SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT

sovereign citizens are just a bunch of autistic lolbertarian manchildren who think the police are out to get them, and make their job difficult for no purpose during basic stuff like breath tests or when they're asking for information

It's a dumb hobby for the mentally ill, structured around harassing cops and going to jail. Cosmo was a kang standing up for the rights of melanated peoples against the deliberate genocide of melanated-Americans by enforcers of the white Neanderthal's law. Sovereign citizens do occasionally sperg out and go pig hunting, but I suspect the race of Cosmo was a larger factor here than his esoteric reading of the US code.

are they powerful ..so much like this video claims?

Those are full auto funs. That's not fair. It triggered me repeatedly in quick succession.

the videoclaims they are involved in more terrorism then jihadists

more like domestic terrorism

wish the best of luck to you Acadians
t. tennesseeian

i heard its origin is from an extremist white organisation?

how much its powerful?

I think the best way to really understand what a Sovern Citizen is, would be to ask the LEOs who are a members of the movement. If there aren't any, then the movement is full of shit.

who r the LEOs here?

Idiots who think they know the laws cause they saw an Alex Jones video

lol..have u ever came acrossed any one of them?

Sovereign Citizen movements are a weird offshoot of the libertarian alignment

Sometimes when you try to swallow the red pill, it can get stuck in your throat for a second. That's the best way I can describe the sovereign movement.

In a nutshell, it tries to go back to a common law lifestyle that is free from any government regulation. Such as…

People get hooked into it with the idea that you can get out of any traffic ticket or tax problem. A lot of it has some legitimate content, but one of the major conditions is that requires orderly and responsible people do it.

That's where the whole movement falls on its ass. Since it's libertarian-ish, you get mostly criminals and ex-cons and just altogether awful people joining this movement.

You get alcoholics, drug addicts, guys with stockpiles of automatic weapons, people who beat their kids, etc.

These are people who have been in trouble with the law their entire lives. They're just pieces of shit in general and should have been gassed at birth.

People who hate to pay taxes, but love to drive on roads.

Gasoline taxes pay for roads

Not income taxes

Right here.

Every one that I come across is exactly what you imagine. Lolbertarian/ancap autistronauts who think they figured out some kind of cheat codes to the legal system. They are universally wild haired hippy leftovers or neckbeard mall-ninja "ZOMBIE SQUAD" faggots. I can promise you there is no value in the non-idealogy of Sovereign citizenry.

Attached is the video that everyone likes to refer to regarding sovereign citizens shooting police

As I said above, you get mostly low IQ criminals who join this movement.

Although there have been very little deadly police interactions over the years compared to niggers, the sovereigns have been labeled as domestic terrorists.

Ultimately, if you venture into the sovereign/law movement, you end up in one of two scenarios

Forget any name and group, just look at history and the laws with an open mind and decide for yourself.

Basically, it's an explanation of law in a way that actually makes sense, and is more akin to what the first Americans experienced right after the revolution.

Any group who disagrees with and stands up to authority will be labeled "terrorists" but most I know are old white men who just keep to themselves and live far off the beaten path.

Anyway, things such as the right to travel do exist, and things such as requirements of license plates and licenses only are supposed to be used when in regulation of commerce.

The creation of a corporate entity alongside your birth and actual identity, and the realization of such, is the foundation of this knowledge. Once you understand how it came to be, you can look further. Basically they believe in human rights over the rule of the laws of the ages.

Understand what it means to have this corporation set up as your strawman, what your ss number actually is, and the difference between just being a human and having a legal fiction set up to deal with the laws of civil society.

Most people I know refer to themselves as denizens, not sovereign citizens due to the negative notions and disinfo spread by gov.

Listen to people talk about "corporate citizens" and understand that your incorporated city you live in is as a Wal-Mart is, and is as your legal Strawman is. Without a corporate entity, you cannot be charged with a civil crime or be sued or participate in legal society. A city exists of buildings naturally but cannot be sued as an entity without incorporation, as a person exists as a person but has no legal power unless recognized as a corporate entity.

What actually is real and what is a legal construct is the difference. You exist regardless of the laws of the time as a natural human, and are not the corporate entity, though you were never told the difference. Just because your ignorant of laws doesn't mean this isn't true. It is how it is.

I'd say the retards of the "sovereign citizen" (people who use the movement to get away with being a piece of shit) movement are the ones who really bring it down.

The thinking lies behind the corporation. As in Law, a corporation is somewhat abstract, but treated the same as a living person. It sounds strange, but.

Corp - Oration. Dead - Words.

Much like said. That

Pretty sure this user has watched vid related.

I don't necessarily agree with everything lolbertarians say, nor can I actually give a proper explanation, so watch the documentary.

It's an interesting perspective.

...

...

...

is it some form of anarchy group?

...

...

...

You are the eternal cuck.

Btw, I murdered this kid and dumped him in the lake. I will never be caught.

t. bootlicker

t. jim
has hotwheels come floating up yet? I know you sold him out to that based flip leader for his shitting up Holla Forums with his opiatefag persona.

I see nothing wrong here.

This thread's been up this long and no one's posted a "sovereign citizens getting owned" compilation? There's tons of them on youtube.

Essentially, some time back people started recording cops, cops didn't know how to react to it and weren't trained for it so footage spread of cops not knowing what to do and people getting out of getting arrested and acting belligerent as fuck because they had a camera.

Cops got used to it, started being better trained. The copycats that followed were mostly talking out of their ass, while the cops had to actually study the laws (or were made to after this shit started happening) so now they just end up getting tazed or their window torn out.

tl;dr: White people with cameras reacting to cops like black people usually do. Seen that video of the girl screaming "No I will not get out of the car, I need to see your supervisor." and then screaming "RAAAAPE RAAAAAPE" when he pulls her out of the car? That's one of them.

It's actually personally very satisfying to me seeing people like this get their shit kicked in. Grew up with a mother who pulled this shit all the time on everyone, me in particular. Like at 12 years old let's say I'd knock on her door and she'd start screaming "HELP! HELP! HE'S BEATING ME! HE'S BEATING ME UP! CALL THE POLICE, HE'S KILLING ME!" just to embarrass me. Then like a toddler when I'd go back to my room a few minutes later as she was leaving she'd knock on my door and laugh before leaving.

That one really showed how fucked up women are nowadays

This guy was loaded.

Wrinkled toothless methheads crying "AM I BEING DETAINED" when anyone with a badge looks at them.

oy fuckin vey da joos did it

Oh my fuck

DAT FLIPINO

TEXAS DID 911

Interesting video indeed. British people don't know how easy they have it. You try that shit here in America you'll likely end up dead.

Dis is da revenge for the six gojillion gassings goy!

You are full of shit:

Niggers latch onto it because they dindu nuffin and fringe white people latch onto it as a desperate peaceful last stand against this monstrous machine we are all stuck in.

Take a jackboot to the face, lefty.

That is what I figured. It seems to be an untermensch phenomenon. I might start paying attention to it if I ever see honorable, responsible men advocating for it.

Here's a benefit to taking a look into this common law thing:

The more and more that you study law, statutes, acts, etc…the more you realize that ever since the civil war, the kikes have fistfucked the entire legal system in this country and have used it against the goy to make him an economic slave.

Up until 1860, nothing written in the state or US costitutions did not explicitly deny the right of the people of anything. It merely was a written outline of what government could and could not do.

After 1860, you started seeing a flurry of amendments to the state and US constitutions establishing things that CITIZENS could and could not do (anti-discrimination, prohibition,etc).

Hell…before the 14th amendment came along, there was NO SUCH THING as a "US citizen".

Before that, the people were subject to the law of the people and society they lived in and with. The common law. After the 14th amendment came along, people accepting the title of US citizen subjugated themselves to the power of the federal govt and it's forever-incomprehensible list of statutes and acts such as the US Code.

It's quite the red pill if the information is handled properly. If you're careless with the knowledge and get to ballsy, you'll possibly try to go all montana freemen on society and get yourself shot by the ATF like a faggot

Also something a bit peculiar -


It always seems that whites are targeted for this shit during a democratic presidency

>I don't understand the multisyllabic legalese that SC's use because my department has a

In short it is the PUA of law.

Don't get information from the (((media and police))) but do your own research.

You have to accept their jurisdiction. You can decline it, but have a hidden audio recorder for the lawsuit when they ignore you. They will quietly pay because they don't want too many people to know the scam. You can also just ask if there is no hope for a widow's son, since all cops are (((freemasons))) and can't detain a fellow craft. Say Tubal Cain a few times, that is their password.

This. I recommend being a MacGyver of you do this.

Bumping an interesting thread

Look up the etymology yourself, ignorant dipshit. Don't expect me to hold your hand further.

I'm not surprised that your lack of education prevents you from seeing the obvious fact that these modern terms are based on the word "corpus" - corporation, corps, corporal, etc.
For someone who claims to 'study Greek and Latin roots" you sure are a fucking embarrassment.

By the way, "dead" in Latin is "mortuus". Hence the words mortician, mortuary, mortified, etc.
In Greek it's thanatos or more commonly "nekros" (when referring to a dead person or other formerly living creature), which is where we get words like necromancy, necrology, necrotising, etc.

Read a fucking book!

The United States is a Corporation.
28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
INSTRUMENT, contracts. The writing which contains some agreement, and is so called because it has been prepared as a memorial of what has taken place or been agreed upon. The agreement and the instrument in which it is contained are very different things, the latter being only evidence of the existence of the former. The instrument or form of the contract may be valid, but the contract itself may be void on account of fraud. Vide Ayl. Parerg. 305; Dunl. Ad. Pr. 220.

I'll post when i tried this out. I actually spent 6 months researching and getting my facts straight. I went in and demolished the logic of the judge with the law. He decided to ignore everything as a tyrant and moved the court on his own which is illegal in a court of record. The magistrate has no such power, but we allow it. I wrote up a motion of contempt, citing law again, but the cunt at the window refused to let me file it since I was not a BAR lawyer. She then proceeded to get a bailiff to remove me from the court.

Introduction
1. NAME(hereinafter highwayman1) exceeded his jurisdiction2 by directly caused counterclaimant Name to be unlawfully detained against his will, without jurisdiction and good cause on so said date/time.
2. Said counterclaimant Name, was traveling3 on the highway4, in his personal automobile5 at time/date. As Name was traveling down the highway, said highwayman was positioned off to the side of the highway. The highwayman proceeded to move his motor vehicle6 from side of highway, onto the highway.

_______
1 A robber on the highway. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
2 "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
3 "The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense…so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.
4 A passage or road through the country, or some parts of it, for the use of the people. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 442. The term highway is said to be a generic name for all kinds of public ways. 6 Mod R, 255.

Approximately after 1 minute after highwayman began to follow Name on highway, highwayman enacted his emergency lights, creating an emergency when it appeared none was present. Name, who was not aware of what emergency, was present, pulled over to the side of the highway in his personal automobile.

3. Under color of law7, Name was detained against his will, highwayman exceeded jurisdiction and through use of coercion, took Name’s private property. Name stated that he was in a state of duress8. Highwayman continued to act under color of law. The highwayman then demanded that Namesign a contract to appear at said location/date/time for extortion9.

_______
5 "The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
6 "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
7 Color of Law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance of legal right. The term usu. implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
8 DURESS: An actual or a threatened violence or restraint of a man's person, contrary to law, to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge one. 1 Fairf. 325.
9 EXTORTION: crimes. In a large sense it, signifies any oppression, under color of right: but in a more strict sense it means the unlawful taking by any officer, by color of his office, of any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due. 4 Bl. Com. 141; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 68, s. 1; 1 Russ. Cr. *144. To constitute extortion, there must be the receipt of money or something of value; the taking a promissory note, which is void, is. not sufficient to make an extortion. 2 Mass. R. 523; see Bac. Ab. h. t.; Co. Litt. 168. It is extortion and oppression for an officer to take money for the performance of his duty, even though it be in. v.) See 6 Cowen, R. 661; 1 Caines, R. 130; 13 S. & R. 426 1 Yeates, 71; 1 South. 324; 3 Penna. R. 183; 7 Pick. 279; 1 Pick. 171.

Sorry I didn't see you doing any community outreach officer. Now getting into the Latin roots I was already a man when I read proper English please document your usage of 'corpus' or a root derivative before mine. Since that is how these things transpire. What you have now, officer, despite what you've been told, is jack and shit. You're just another faggot on the internet triggered by what's been said.

Which is that you are a faggot. A bootlicking cocksucking faggot.

Extortion should be


Cont
Highwayman, while maintaining a state of coercion and continuing to act under color of law, repeatedly demanded Name to sign contract while highwayman fully acknowledge Name was not Sui Juris.

Specifics
4. Highwayman acted in such way that counterclaimant Name was deprived of his essential Liberty10. The following paragraphs describe what Highwayman, under color of law, either acted or failed to act as obligated, and explain thoroughly what the law is and what was violated by counter defendant.
5. On DATE, Name was traveling in his automobile down the highway. As said, highwayman was in his motor vehicle, following counterclaimant Name . Highwayman proceeded to use his emergency lights in a non-emergency situation. Name , not aware of emergency pulled over since there was a supposed emergency. Highwayman then exceeded his jurisdiction by detaining Name against his will and declaring that Name was in violation statutory law. Highwayman did not declare or show proof that I was acting in commerce to be subjected to statutory law. Name informed highwayman that he was a sovereign traveling to my destination, but highwayman continued to act under color of law.

10 LIBERTY: Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
6. As understood in the Declaration of Independence, we have unalienable rights which are to include life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness11. As, cases before have established, that to travel is a common Right under enjoyment of Life and Liberity12. These rights cannot be deprived by any state, as stated in the United States Constitution13, which was established by the People14.
_______
11 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
12 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
13 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14 The People referenced in the preamble of the United States Constitution, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." are clearly the Sovereigns, thus can’t be involuntary subjected to the laws of the United States. Since the United States Constitution doesn’t define People, we can clearly derive a definition for People by referencing the preceding document Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
The Courts have continued to affirm the founding principles and definitions of Liberty consistently within the Constitution and the Natural Rights graciously granted to us by God 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
_______
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That 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.” As clearly stated, the People have the authority over any government. The government can only gain authority from the consent of the People. The People have inherited the right from Nature and God to create or abolish governments as they see fit to guard their Liberty, only by being in a Sui Juris state. Next to reference Amendment X from the United States Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The government cannot assume authority over the People; it is not delegated in the Constitution to have authority over People. Only when the People relinquish their Sovereignty to be subjected to the governments regulations. As stated with the above grammar, this is what People will be defined as hereinafter.
15 "Personal liberty or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution… It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights as sacred as the right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
16 "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
17 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
18 "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
19 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

7. Traveling is widely considered to fall under our Liberties as said. As delivered by Justice Brennan from the Supreme Court, “This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”20 Contrary to the right to freely travel, a privilege is not a guaranteed right secured to the People. When highways are used for private gains, jurisdiction does fall to the state to regulate21. Thus we have established a clear difference between the right to travel and a privilege when operating in commerce22.
_______
20 This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.". . . The right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1825) the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In concurring opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Edwards v. California and the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849), a Commerce Clause approach was employed. See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500(1964); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), where the freedom of Americans to the country was grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Highwayman has accused Name of violating California vehicle code 22349.(a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive23 a vehicle24 upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour. Upon examination of this charge, it is clear that Highwayman has willfully acted Under Color of Law, thus rendering no Jurisdiction to proceed.
_______
21 "…For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion. "State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
22 COMMERCE, trade, contracts. The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. 2. Congress have power by the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. 1 Kent. 431; Story on Corst. 1052, et seq. The sense in which the word commerce is used in the constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation. Story, 1057; 9 Wheat. 190, 191, 215, 229; 1 Tuck. Bl. App. 249 to 252. Vide 17 John. R. 488; 4 John. Ch. R. 150; 6 John. Ch. R. 300; 1 Halst. R. 285; Id. 236; 3 Cowen R. 713; 12 Wheat. R. 419; 1 Brock. R. 423; 11 Pet. R. 102; 6 Cowen, R. 169; 3 Dana, R. 274; 6 Pet. R. 515; 13 S. & R. 205.
23 DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng.

It is understood in the language, that to agree stated conditions stated in the CVC22349.(a), one must be employed25 to fall under statutory law, in explanation, operating in commerce. It should also be apparent that vehicle and automobile are not the same in law26, 27. In addition the California department of motor vehicles has a specific definition for “passenger vehicle”28 and clearly distinguishes that “automobile”29 is defined as not operating in commerce. With all relevant case law and definitions, it is to be deducted unanimously that said, People must operate in commerce on highway, that is for private gains, to fall under authority of statue laws as CVC22348.(a). No evidence has been presented by Highwayman to prove I was employed to drive on the road, therefore no jurisdiction exists which voids30 all complaints filed by highwayman.
_______
C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
24 CVC Section 670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks.
25 EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to. perform certain duties. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,1856 edition
26“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″
27 “The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
28 CVC Section 465. A "passenger vehicle" is any motor vehicle, other than a motortruck, truck tractor, or a bus, as defined in Section 233 , and used or maintained for the transportation of persons. The term "passenger vehicle" shall include a housecar. Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 1008, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.
29 An "automobile" is a passenger vehicle that does not transport persons for hire. This includes station wagons, sedans, vans, and sport utility vehicles. dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/online/fee_calc/vehdef VC section 465
30 "Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other Court. But, if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828

...

It was funny to see the judges reaction when he stated that the highwayman is an officer of law and I just read Bouviers Law Diction definition of a highwayman. But of course he just ignored facts and moved the court on his own. Everytime I submitted a court order, he would just claim I had no power to do so and wiped it out. Once they figured out I that I kept filing papers to the record, that's when they pulled the lawyer card and would just threaten to escort me out by force, what a fucking clown show lulz.

I suggest for any legal definitions you use bouvier's law since that was commissioned by Congress. But like I experienced, the despotism is strong and some are successful and others not so much.

MORE:
Maximum Speed Limit

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.


(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:

(1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.

(2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.


PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
ARTIFICIAL PERSON. In a figurative sense, a body of men or company are sometimes called an artificial person, because the law associates them as one, and gives them various powers possessed by natural persons. Corporations are such artificial persons. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 177.
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.

3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to. perform certain duties.
2. He is entitled to a just compensation for his services; when there has been a special contract, to what has been agreed upon; when not, to such just recompense as he deserves.
3. He is bound to perform the services for which he has engaged himself; and for a violation of his engagement he may be sued, but he is not liable to corporal correction. An exception to this rule may be mentioned; on the ground of necessity, a sailor may be punished by reasonable correction, when it is necessary for the safety of the vessel, and to maintain discipline. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1001: 2 Id. n. 2296.

Watched a few minutes of this and don't like it very much. My way of dealing with people is to think of them in very basic, very primitive terms. I just pay attention to if a person if aggressive, if they want to harm me, if they are armed, how many of them are, etc. and act accordingly. Doesn't matter if it's a police officer or not. It's all just different gangs or tribes if you will. I try to be on good terms with the biggest and most powerful.

At the end of the day the men who are stronger, better trained, better armed, etc. get to say what you happens to you and you have to fall in line or prepare to die.

I don't think government stole money they made it out of thin air.

They steal your soul ;^)

Can I just start talking to them about Albert Pike and Manly P. Hall?

t. read lots of books of those authors

Oh please, don't say creepy shit like that, I know what my soul is and it regenerates and it melds.

So, officer, you won't be butt hurt when some patriot puts you down like the dog you are?

if so we need more copfags like you.

I do not live within the legal system so… I've been reading a couple posts of your stuff but given up now as it's tl;dr and it probably only applies in America anyways.

I'm not a police officer. You are a human endowed with free will and can do whatever you want (and so can I). No law is ever going to protect you. A bunch of papers sitting in some drawer somewhere aren't going to govern our interactions with each other.

Only the universal laws of charisma, decency, common-interest, love, race, etc. apply.

I manage to live fine without legal fictions and so do some of my cousins and so on.

Just remember police officers are humans too and ones with at least some training, equipment, etc. and their own gang(s).

mfw know men who've literally killed others, sometimes several other people, and ran from the police and yet they've never ever been in prison so far

Reminds me of this autistic lolberg I know who films cops everywhere he goes, even when they're just sitting in their car eating lunch.

Hi Jamal

Eastern Europe

Serbia?

No, Czech Republic.

This

A lot of people are ignorant of the law and foundation of the law, yet accept what others in "a position of authority" tell them is the law, even when those entities themselves are misinformed or knowingly use their incorrect interpretation as it gives them "power" over others.

Ask yourself why they wrote prohibition into the constitution as an amendment, but yet have not done the same with other drugs or freedom restricting laws.

The first 10 amendments were added by Anti-federalists, thank god, because they seen the potential of abuse.

The difference in such laws as the 10 and many of the ones to follow is that those laws enhance freedom versus restricting it.

U.S. code is rules of the Corporation known as the United States. The corporation exists alongside the natural government, but it's sole purpose is to protect commerce and corporations in its jurisdiction. It is no more a gov of the people or controlled by the people than entities such as the Federal Reserve.

Only Congress has the power to coin money, and they are forbidden to have anything besides precious metal as currency for citizen use. But the U.S. corporation uses notes as chuckee cheezes uses tokens, as an insider tender.

The IRS is a division of the IMF, and anyone in operations under their corporate entity, which are established and protected by the U.S. Corporation, are to pay the taxes for their inclusion and protection in that society.

Free citizens do have the right to own property, and to trade in metals and proper coin, but consider that real property aka land is owned only by the various governments who lease it to you as a tenant, for which they charge you taxes. There are no alloidal titles, just tenant deeds.

History on this is expansive, it will takes years of learning and curiosity to dig into this stuff. Look it up n make judgements for yourself.

Also consider the real "first" 13th amendment, the titles of nobility clause. It states that no citizen shall accept and position which puts them in a "privileged class" of people. This was based off of unhappiness with old European attitudes toward not just royalty, but the system's of knighthood and such organizations which determined themselves to have authority of the law.

In the proper manner, no person can be charged with any infraction or crime, without having first deemed them guilty and the validity of the law itself through the process of a jury trial.

The titles of nobility clause would have put an end to "judges" (knights) and lawyers (squires, aka esquires). They are not supposed to make decisions, only the jury is.

There was a titles of nobility clause in the articles of confederation. The 13th amendment was ratified, but overshadowed by the civil war, which was not about slavery or states rights so much as northern corporations versus southern aristocracy.

The north being financed by the families who owned those corporations who lent the money to the Union, after the war was owned by those corporations. This is the beginning of the third takeover of our country since the revolution.

The war over the sources and means of production resulted in the "reconstruction amendments" which basically turned all people into "U.S. citizens" with the exception of some denizen groups such as natives. It's important to note it's about inclusion to their civil society, aka citizenship, and applying their laws to all people they deemed within their "jurisdiction."

The government has changed many times, we have had several takeovers of this country, fought not just with battle, but by economic takeover also. All your hating of the Jews Holla Forums and you still don't know ( at least those residing in the US) your own history.

Even using their own game, you can beat them with it. As the other user experienced in his dealings with a judge and court, they don't often understand the law themselves, as they weren't taught everything, and what they were taught is just like most schools do, their ideas confined to their own ideology and programming.

Even if they fail to recognize legitimacy in your case, it is because they want power over you. Cops shoot innocents all the time and anyone given power abuses it, which is why the first president didn't really even have any power under the articles. I once knew a judge, he came drinking at my Dads bar, and used to joke after a long night at my Dads hotel that when he had a hangover, everybody was going to jail that day. He was a mob judge, and this was in the 60s and 70s but I'm 100 percent certain that every judge is in their seat because of the power, for one reason or another.

So what you're saying is police can't take money from you for speeding unless you're on the road as an employee; ie: Truck driver?
What I'm also gathering is that a driver's license is unconstitutional similar to that as a gun license is unconstitutional.

Don't pay attention to the media shilling.
Sovs are usually blacks or spics, or the scummiest looking mutts the white race rejected years ago.
They all regurgitate the same bullshit.
Basically they think they aren't a citizen of the united states.
So laws do not apply to them.
They often drive without insurance or a license, so if one hits you you're fucked really.

The media likes to rope them in with militia types to smear more mud around.

So you are butthurt by Templars, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, etc. (all have knighthood)?

Anyone who believes in the constipoosion and natural rights is not a sovereign citizen

No. Not at all.

...

Ok let me try:
Don't be fooled by the media shilling, most of the opponents of the sovereign citizen movement are shitskins and dysgenic whites with below average IQ because that's what police departments hire.


You like Masons and Rosicrucians? You must be a cop and an oathfag wew. Where are muh circles when you need them?


What the fuck does that even mean? Cheeseburgers don't make people fat, people make Cheeseburgers fat. People don't get addicted to heroin, heroin is addicted to people. Those quotes are pure sophistry.

Power isn't like the force from Star Wars, it's not some external eternal fundamental force of the universe, it's an abstraction of human activity.

I like reading books by Freemasons lots but I hate their egalitarian rhetoric which just gets worse and worse too the further ahead in time you go. Albert Pike is hilarious in that he spews all this egalitarian "all men are equal" bullshit btw but then hates on niggers and women throughout his book.

Corruption corrupts people then. Power just empowers them. Some people are responsible and use power wisely others don't. Stop saying power corrupts people.

A semantically null statement. Corruption also isn't a fundamental force of the universe. This isn't WH40K.

Power over others often corrupts people, and always amplifies and protects bad decisions, meaning that when pol pot decides he hates people with glasses and wants them gone he does much more damage than Joe Sixpack who feels the same way. When Mao decides to eliminate the four most prevalent pests he fucks up an entire country, not just his own fields. When you disagree with Stalin's five year plan you don't get a spirited debate based on reason and evidence, you get sent to a gulag. When Bill Clinton decides to rape a woman he gets away with it, if you even fuck your wife without consent you're going to prison.

No one is going to stop using the truism power corrupts just because it triggers you.

You seem to be suggesting nobody should ever have power then. Fuck that. Some people can wield power fine and don't get corrupted by it.

Compelling argument. Obviously power over yourself, your affairs, your family, is natural and healthy. The state however will take that power away from you and give it to people you've never met who may fall anywhere on the political spectrum or IQ scale. So why do you have such a hardon for it?

Bump

Well I think it's fair to say that Sovereign Citizens win this thread then.

Ok.

The Declaration of Independence is not a part of US law.

The Constitution of the United States and the US Code comprise federal law. Beyond federal law, there is also state law, which you are nonetheless required to follow. If you are pulled over by your county police department, chances are high that you're breaking state or local law. You know how the 10th amendment states that powers not reserved to our federal government are granted to the states? Yeah, that means that when, say, California or Indiana law says that you can't speed, just because the congress isn't granted that authority doesn't mean your state isn't, and on the contrary, it is, and you're required to follow that law.

Nah. Anyone who is a member of the species homo sapiens that comes out of the womb of another member of the species homo sapiens, who then breathes, has a beating heart, or otherwise voluntarily moves their muscles, is a person.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Hey guy your trip is on

I'm aware. Being a shitposting tripfag is my job. Any questions?

Its literally their job to steal money from you. And have you never heard of a corrupt cop?

doubles

some of the idea in the sovereign / freeman movement are correct. Unfortunately there is a huge amount of misinformation so it can be difficult to discern what is true and what is not.

The real problem is that no matter how many rules and laws you learn, the courts are corrupt and will change the rules when it suits them and and trying to use their system to get justice is virtually impossible. You can make some small wins if you can successfully draw out a minor case into a long and unprofitable one, but for anything vaguely serious, you'll create more trouble for yourself.

You may learn how and why you are being screwed, strawman bonds etc, but until this truth is common knowledge and people take to the streets with pitchforks and torches its all just an armchair exercise.


the fire rises?

That stopped being the case when Lincoln destroyed the legitimate United States government, which was situated in the South. Now we're ruled by imperial fiat.

checked

They demand the money (they printed out of thin air) that you worked for with the threat of force.

extortion is the term we are looking for here.

De facto not de jure. A valid point nonetheless.
Sovereign arguments are mostly legal and valid, the courts and governments are not.

Sovereign citizens are domestic terrorists who don't believe in lawful taxation or the authority of the federal government.

It has been a problematic movement for over 100 years, often leading to confrontations attempting to violently overthrow the US Government. It is funded by external powers, traditionally the Soviet block nations.

Under Bezmenov's nomenclature, they are an aspect of the Useful Idiot, on the far libertarian right of the spectrum.

...

Someone charge her with false accusations of rape.

Secret societies calling themselves knights are not the same as those appointed by monarchs or governments to dispense "justice" at their whim to a lower class of society.

Speeding tickets fall in the way of safety, which can be debated on legitimate reasoning. Still, they can site you for it, but it should be up to a jury to determine if you should be punished at all, and if that speed limit is proper by general consensus of those driving on the road, being that it is a jury of your peers.

Yes, a driver's license is only needed when participating in commerce like a commercial truck driver. Any person has the right to travel by method popular to their day, without any special papers or requirements. Driving is NOT a privilege, IT IS A RIGHT.

Yes, all. Even God's smite people in their own religious texts.

Anyone given power will be affected by it, and will use it to their advantage personally. What's corrupt depends on your views. Corruption can be used even in good ways if you think about it. But it's still power over others, when we are all supposed to be equals, regardless of dollars, or fame or whatever, we all have the same rights inherently as natural to life on earth.

Uh, it is also granted to the people.

Cities and counties are municipal corporations, aka corporate citizens. Even the US CORP aka FED GOV, is different than the United States government, and is almost like a "parallel state" to the natural order of the country.

Our country is not at war, congress has not declared it. There is no standing army in the United States either. U.S. armed forces protecting corporate interests nationwide are not United States soldiers, they are trained soldiers for the corporation and the soldiers themselves sign away their rights to that company, like an indentured servant. Think about this.

Why should an entity, a corporate citizen, have more rights or control over another citizen? They shouldnt, and the individual has the same authority and can veto that just by saying so. If there is a disagreement between a person and a city, you go to the county to resolve, then state, then federal. If a corporate person gets best every time all the way, they lose. But, they can also win. In the absence of a higher court, your authority is on par with them.

As a natural person, you can just say fuck it all and to he'll with maintaining the strawman, which is when ppl are fed up n ppl get hurt when they keep bothering these people.

You all are maintaining your strawmen, whether you try to use the law as it is set up to exercise the difference between you and your strawman or operate everything under it, is up to you.

Taxation is not lawful unless it's done as a flat tax, same for everyone, as set forth in the constitution. Keep in mind that the Articles was set up differently, and that taxation used to be simple. Now it is the IRS, a department of the IMF, which is not the United States Gov but a separate entity unrelated to the gov. The FED GOV is the ones who control U.S. CODE but only the Constitution applies to the people.

The same is true of walmart… when not at walmart, as an employee, your not subject to their rules, not entirely. You have an identity there, and another as a regular person. When engaging in commerce using federal reserve notes, you are supposed to pay into their system a tax for that "privilege." Taxes are bs, it's the reason the constitution was created though, because people wanted more power over everyone, and power over the states, who before that under the articles acted more like allied countries. The confederate states were a union of states, but the union was a fully controlled federal state. Still, this war was just northern aggression by northern companies and banking to take all power from southern aristocracy and to take away the southern financial independence.

If the land isn't part of the US, then why hasn't Obama invaded it?


Nah not even that, they don't want you armed, they believe that you are just part of schemes to keep them down.
Its a very personal movement.


Which just establishes that if I shoot you first and kill your family, I can do as I please.
Most of those legal fictions are more about bringing the wrath of god, literal and metaphorical on the ass of anyone who violates them as revenge.
Few laws are preventative, most of them licensing or standards, and instead its saying do shit get hit.


You can walk.
Cars aren't in the Constitution, just like the US has no right to roam.


Which matters for zilch, since the Constitution allows itself to be modded.
If I say you may take one step in any direction torward the goal at a time, but place no limits on those steps, I should not be surprised when you end up somewhere very different.

epic retardation: the post

Ok why is no one questioning what the fuck is this.

Is this Jim?

sovereign citizen movement are genuine patriots

they will be the first movement in america to bring genuine libertarianism back

by 2050 we will have ended the fed, killed all the pig cops, made it legal to have personal nuclear weapons, and re-introduced child sex markets

no longer will statist bootlickers make certain weapons illegal and restricted

no longer will they constrain the sexuality of virile men