It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sovereign Citizen Gets 30 Days---Charlotte County, Florida

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


The Judge asked you if you stand under the charges, and accept the persecution. By answering "Yes, your honor.", you are accepting his contract and submitting yourself to his authority.




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Are you being intentionally obtuse? If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...


True, but to drive a car you need a licence....



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


So you can not put tags on it and they'll repossess the tin can...Think you own your land because you have a warranty deed? You don't actually own a house or land unless you have the land patent. Just try not paying your property taxes, and see how long it takes for Mr. Rothschild and company to send a fancy representative to your door with a pince nez.

Last bit was a bit off-topic; just to show common sense doesn't matter. The law will always do what it wants because it can just commit treason by throwing people in jail. Who is to contradict them? They are the law....Regardless of what the law really is taxes, licenses, etc, they'll still do what they want because they can.

Point being...You can't really have rights if you have to ask permission to do everything..
edit on 2-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by petrus4
 

Dear petrus4,

There is quite a lot about you that I admire


Thank you. Narcissistic supply is always greatly appreciated.



I watched the video and noted that this is a court in Manitoba, Canada. I am unfamiliar with their laws.


I'm not overly familiar with the law of Canada, either. However, I'd recommend watching the film Ungrip, linked in my sig, if you haven't already. The sovereign man in that film was Canadian, and he does speak about the political history of that country.


Second, the only thing the magistrate (or judge, or whatever they're called) did, was declare a recess. There was no victory for the "sovereign citizen," in fact, he has to sit around twiddling his thumbs, wasting his time, while the magistrate goes out for a good laugh, or whatever else he wants to do.


I don't think we really have enough information to be able to determine that, one way or the other. The man in question noted that the judge had abandoned the court; and I can remember reading elsewhere that bowing in the manner he did, was actually an indication of such. The man was then able to leave the courtroom, and the bailiffs did not block his departure.

You may be correct that the judge could issue another summons at a later time, but the case may also have been dismissed.


Please don't advise people to follow his example.


This requires clarification.

I would not advocate anybody follow his example in precise or exact action at all, without first having an extremely thorough knowledge of the law, as it applies to their local area. I believe that the main reason why American authorities tend to consider sovereigns mentally ill, is primarily because the aspirant sovereigns in question, do not have a sufficient knowledge of the law, in order to be able to exercise their sovereignty successfully.

Hence; it is not this individual's specific actions which should necessarily be replicated, but rather his attitude. If his attitude is replicated, along with sufficient knowledge of the local law, and strategic adaptation is made accordingly, then a successful result will likely be attained.

The Service to Self or negatively/entropically polarised psychopaths, who continually aspire to ruling this planet, do not have the ability to entirely circumvent or block the inherent nature of human spiritual sovereignty; as I at least believe that it exists at an acorporeal level; although my views on the subject do not necessarily exist from a primarily Christian context.

Christians tend to believe that God gave them sovereignty. I, on the other hand, believe that sovereignty is inherent to the point where it cannot be given; as it is a prerequisite for creation's ability to continue to propagate itself, and therefore exist, at all. So you might consider this a point of semantics, but unfortunately you will find that pedantry is the very soul of ponerogenic/Service to Self law.

This is the basis of sovereignty; and it is the basis on which such legal claims as Hitler's, and to a certain extent many of the current American government's, can be refuted. That which is contrary to the continued ability of life to exist, must, by definition, be held as unlawful, irrespective of the claims of any fascist authority to the contrary.

Fascism has an inherent correspondence with death. It is macro-social cancer, and for this precise reason. Fascism seeks, more than anything else, the establishment of a legal system, within which life cannot continue to perpetuate itself.

Spiritual Sovereignty - This is a document on the subject which has my general agreement, and it can provide you with additional information on this concept.

Because, however, our sovereignty is inviolable in practical terms, the psychopaths have instead, over a long period of time, attempted to do two things.

a] To create an initial (that is, at birth, or via child education) assumption of non-sovereignty.
b] To construct a sufficiently labyrinthine and opaque legal system, that practical, successful assertion of sovereignty becomes exceptionally difficult.



Watch Ungrip, if you are willing. I think it will help.
edit on 2-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...


True, but to drive a car you need a licence....



I have learnt how to drive at age 9 and drove our family cars & tractors , regularly in my village .
I didn't need a licence to drive .
I just needed a desire to do so .



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...


True, but to drive a car you need a licence....



I have learnt how to drive at age 9 and drove our family cars & tractors , regularly in my village .
I didn't need a licence to drive .
I just needed a desire to do so .




And legally if you wanted to take those vehicles onto a government road you would NEED a license. That put very simply is the law of the state that you live in, what is so hard to grasp about that...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...


True, but to drive a car you need a licence....



I have learnt how to drive at age 9 and drove our family cars & tractors , regularly in my village .
I didn't need a licence to drive .
I just needed a desire to do so .




And legally if you wanted to take those vehicles onto a government road you would NEED a license. That put very simply is the law of the state that you live in, what is so hard to grasp about that...




Most people think that the " LAW " and " LEGAL " are the same.

The "act" of me driving my car without a licence is actually not against the LAW yet to do so is a Legal Offence !!!

Because I have agreed to be bound by these rules and regulations of the Legal Land ; does that mean that I can't change my mind ?

Does it mean that I can't revoke my consent any given time ?

Legal rules and regulations require the given consent .

If there is no consent , these rules and regulations are not applicable to the individual concerned .

Asthonising as it might sound , that is how democracies work .

No one should be " railroaded " to justice under the Colour Of Law .



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
If I have the right to travel, it doesn't say I must use my legs....Hell you don't buy a license to ride on a friggin airplane...


True, but to drive a car you need a licence....



I have learnt how to drive at age 9 and drove our family cars & tractors , regularly in my village .
I didn't need a licence to drive .
I just needed a desire to do so .




And legally if you wanted to take those vehicles onto a government road you would NEED a license. That put very simply is the law of the state that you live in, what is so hard to grasp about that...




Most people think that the " LAW " and " LEGAL " are the same.

The "act" of me driving my car without a licence is actually not against the LAW yet to do so is a Legal Offence !!!

Because I have agreed to be bound by these rules and regulations of the Legal Land ; does that mean that I can't change my mind ?

Does it mean that I can't revoke my consent any given time ?

Legal rules and regulations require the given consent .

If there is no consent , these rules and regulations are not applicable to the individual concerned .

Asthonising as it might sound , that is how democracies work .

No one should be " railroaded " to justice under the Colour Of Law .











Interestin, in my state there is a LAW passed by the congress of the state that says (in lay terms) Anyone that gets behind the wheel of a car and operates said car on a public road without a valid operators license is therefore breaking the law prohibiting such operation.. where am I confusing anything? If you want to live in my state and you want to drive on the public roads you need an operators license, if you do not have one, that is against State Law..



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Where is the law that says you must have a license to get married though?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by vkey08
 


Where is the law that says you must have a license to get married though?

Ask and ye shall receive...


§ 46b-24. License required. Period of validity. Penalty. (a) No persons may be joined in marriage in this state until both have complied with the provisions of sections 46b-24, 46b-25 and 46b-29 to 46b-33, inclusive, and have been issued a license by the registrar for the town in which (1) the marriage is to be celebrated, or (2) either person to be joined in marriage resides, which license shall bear the certification of the registrar that the persons named therein have complied with the provisions of said sections.


That is from the state I live in, ie: the law of said state...



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
If they don't want to fully participate in society then there are plenty of uninhabited tropical islands in the Pacific that can support a few people living on them full time if they truly want to be "sovereign".




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join