19075Warning: wife abusing, counterfeiting, terrorist on the loose
- Dec 26, 2012
>came across the A4V and Sovereign movement
I believe this to be "pay-triot mythology" which you should avoid AT ALL COSTS. Can you find ONE Supreme Court Case that supports these concepts?
I’m agreeing with Mike on this.
You personally ARE NOT, CAN NOT, "be sovereign". In America, "the People" are sovereign. That is the collective whole, not an individual "person".
I disagree with this based on West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett and what the court said there about individual consent. The point of the Barnette case: You can’t coerce the consent by way of a law threatening individuals with jail. And, the majority, collectively, cannot put the minority’s rights to a vote.
Quotes from that case have been previously posted to this forum. Search for the word consent here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/messages
>Turns out to be the FBI who was talking about "Sovereign Citizens" when I came to the room. I cooperated with them, truthfully about my feelings on the movement, how I feel about the government, military, anything they asked really and they told me that a lot of people thought I was a conspiracy theorist and may be a danger to others and the government.
Telling the cops and the FBI that you are "sovereign" has likely made your immediate future look very dim. Consider yourself blessed that you didn't get shot!
From Chisholm in particular this quote:
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African 472*472 slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Id. @ 471-2.
And from Yick Wo this quote:
When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed 370*370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. Id. @ 369-70.
The point of Yick Wo, no man is subject to the arbitrary will of another man in this country even if that man works for the government.
If you want your Rights, you have to fight for them in court - not discuss them with policy enforcers who get paid to put you in jail.
If you’re going to talk to the policy enforcers it should be in large part to remind them of their oaths to uphold the constitutions and give you ALL of your rights; including the right to believe you are a sovereign. Also, to point out that it is a federal crime to put you in fear of exercising your rights:
18 USC § 241:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
To them your question should be, ‘Are you conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to me by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of my having so exercised the same??”
A case I am using in a Pleading I am writing today is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654-658 - Supreme Court 1898. It has a comprehensive opinion on citizenship that dovetails nicely with "how" I am asserting my Rights in court. I will consider uploading it here, if Bear does not object.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>