The 'Sovereign Person' defense.. does it work?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'm simply stating my personal knowledge of the subject to a member that I don't want to see end up in harms way. If you know the rules here, then you should be aware that it would be a violation of the Terms and Conditions of the site for me to knowingly post false information.

If you want to get into a protracted legal debate on the subject we can do that (though I don’t know if I am up for it tonight), but that seems to be unnecessary work in simply answering a members simple and straightforward question.

Just right off the cuff though, one of the reasons that the Sovereign movement isn't true is because it very much relies on the UCC. The UCC has only existed since the 1950's. We have been arresting and punishing people since the founding of this country over 200 years ago, long before the UCC even existed.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Without the random cross reference, what is a hoax? Or are only moderators allowed minimal posts?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Yes...sadly they have hijacked the notion of self-representation and governance. Instead they have subjected themselves outside of the law and then point to that law they deny exists. Like I said....the 9th and 10th Amendment can take you a long way with out joining one of these groups.



Honestly, This post says it all.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


hoax (hks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.
Dictionary

AND

Yes



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Poor Wesley Snipes fell for this crap, and look where it got him..........



edit on 10-5-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
I'm simply stating my personal knowledge of the subject to a member that I don't want to see end up in harms way. If you know the rules here, then you should be aware that it would be a violation of the Terms and Conditions of the site for me to knowingly post false information.


The debater in me would argue this....you were not simply stating your "personal" knowledge as you acknowledged it came from a lawyer friend of yours....even if you are are simply trying to provide the pathway for their voice. Commendable though and I respect the T&Cs and that person's position.


If you want to get into a protracted legal debate on the subject we can do that (though I don’t know if I am up for it tonight), but that seems to be unnecessary work in simply answering a members simple and straightforward question.


Read my reply again....I am not for the stance that the "Sovereign" persons' stance. There is a much easier stance to make than their convoluted perceptions in my opinion.
edit on 5/10/2013 by defcon5 because: fixed broken page



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
I'm simply stating my personal knowledge of the subject to a member that I don't want to see end up in harms way. If you know the rules here, then you should be aware that it would be a violation of the Terms and Conditions of the site for me to knowingly post false information.


The debater in me would argue this....you were not simply stating your "personal" knowledge as you acknowledged it came from a lawyer friend of yours....even if you are are simply trying to provide the pathway for their voice. Commendable though and I respect the T&Cs and that person's position.


If you want to get into a protracted legal debate on the subject we can do that (though I don’t know if I am up for it tonight), but that seems to be unnecessary work in simply answering a members simple and straightforward question.


Read my reply again....I am not for the stance that the "Sovereign" persons' stance. There is a much easier stance to make than their convoluted perceptions in my opinion.
edit on 5/10/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Gotcha...so the OP asks a question...you jump in and claim hoax (and break the rules of the forum with a one lined post; claiming you can do so) and we should just not question it any more?! That is denying ignorance to the fullest. ATS makes me proud. No wonder one of your best posters was banned with this nonsense.....



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

i woke up and freed myself years ago . i do not drive like an idiot or endanger anyone . i did tell the irs that i was no longer consenting to the theft of my property and by tacit they agreed with me. a free being and an idiot are totally different things . as i stated previously, the whole "as seen on t.v." sovereign citizen movement is a scam . I am licensed to operate a motor vehicle upon public roads , but I also reserved my natural common law rights to freely travel . I have had a couple encounters with policy officers , and did not enter into any contract with them and received no hassle. I dont go around acting like an a@#hole , drawing un needed hassle , but as soon as I have any encounter with anyone operating under the color of authority , I let them know that my rights are fully intact , and that I am un willing to enter into any contract un conditionally. if I do somehow injure someone , or their property , I would man up , and take care of my responsibility , but I do my best to avoid un needed hassle.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
you were not simply stating your "personal" knowledge as you acknowledged it came from a lawyer friend of yours....

I didn't state that it came from a lawyer friend of mine, I stated that I had discussed it with a lawyer friend of mine. I have known this was a scam long before that conversation occurred.

The lawyer friend of mine actually was telling me about how they prosecuted people who where involved in this scam, and what the penalties were. How if the person truly believed in what they were saying that sometimes they would actually end up being put in a mental institution by the judge, listed as being insane. Since then, it has been added to the FBI, DHS, etc... as potential terror organizations.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Read my reply again....I am not for the stance that the "Sovereign" persons' stance. There is a much easier stance to make than their convoluted perceptions in my opinion.

Sounds interesting, what is it?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Bond v. United States shows how a citizen can utilize their protected Rights to fight back against a government who has or is trying to infringe on their and their States' rights. It is a hallmark case that surprisingly didn't get reported.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andboycott
 
I have heard this before be "Sovereign Citizen er person" well here is what the civil liberties thinks of this www.civil-liberties.com... here is what the FBI thinks www.fbi.gov... and here is {yes it is a MSM news article} but it does point out what it is www.nbcnews.com... and two links from the Southern Poverty Law Center www.splcenter.org... and here www.splcenter.org... so yea go ahead and try it , see if you can log on form prison and let us know how it went, er how many years you got.

In short it is Not a good defense to use. pay your fine and say it wont happen again. or get a good Lawyer to defend you, if you do not have the funds for your own good do not take a Court appointed Lawyer, plead no contest. this does not say your guilty or innocent, but is better than saying guilty.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


]My employer was an retired attorney, and we discussed this at length. Believe me, seriously, don't try it...


That was where the implied notion came from by the way. You discussed it and then proclaim we should trust you. It is an easy inference.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


1st you should really think before you spout things you apparently know nothing about

1 line posts only apply to those that add nothing to the topic
My reply of "Hoax" was perfectly relevant to the topic and so allowed.. You really should read the Terms and Conditions that YOU agreed to on joining

Also if you bothered to click the link I supplied instead of regurgitating drivel, you would have seen the thread where this was proven a HOAX

But thanks for playing it is always a good feeling to win




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Gotcha...so the OP asks a question...you jump in and claim hoax

No, the site owners have looked into this being a hoax, Semper is linking you to Bill's statement on the subject.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
(and break the rules of the forum with a one lined post; claiming you can do so)

The “One line post rule” is probably the most misunderstood rule on the site.
You can post a single line, as long as its meaningful. Its non-meaningful single line posts, that add nothing to the discussion, that we will action. So for example someone posting “S&F” or “First”.

See:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
No wonder one of your best posters was banned with this nonsense.....

If someone was banned they did more then what you are publicly aware of.
The problem with some of the best posters, which leads to their ultimate demise, is that they get a big ego to go along with it. Some will also have the need to top their previous successes that then leads to issues like plagiarism, hoaxing, etc...



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

which one???

Court opinions for Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 - 2000 - ‎Supreme Court - Cited by 772
Bond v. United States, 397 F. 2d 162 - 1968 - ‎Court of Appeals, 10th … - Cited by 93
Bond v. United States, 233 A. 2d 506 - 1967 - ‎DC: Court of Appeals - Cited by 35
Search Results

Bond v. United States (2011) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2011)‎
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a Tenth Amendment case; the Supreme Court of the United States decided in late June 2011 that standing can ...
Background - Decision - Subsequent history - References
Bond v. United States (2000) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2000)‎
Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court Fourth Amendment case that applied the ruling of Minnesota v. Dickerson to ...
Bond v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States‎
Bond v. United States may refer to: Bond v. United States (2000), a case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; Bond v. United States (2011), a case in Tenth ...
Bond v. United States : SCOTUSblog
www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states-2/‎
Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution's structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress' authority to enact legislation to ...
Lawfare › Bond v. United States and the Treaty Power Debate
www.lawfareblog.com/.../bond-v-united-states-and-the-treaty-power-deb...‎
Jan 28, 2013 – The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an important case concerning the government's foreign affairs powers, Bond v. United States.
JURIST - Forum: Bond v. United States and Treaty Bonds
jurist.org/forum/2013/02/jordan-paust-bond-v-us.php‎
Feb 2, 2013 – JURIST Contributing Editor Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that arguments put forward in the case of Bond v. United ...
Opinio Juris » Blog Archive » Will Bond v. United States Matter?
opiniojuris.org/2013/01/19/will-bond-v-united-states-matter/‎
Jan 20, 2013 – Bond v. United States is one of those cases that promises both more and less than it seems. At first glance, it seems an important and ...
Bond v. United States (09-1227) | LII / Legal Information Institute
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-1227‎
Carol Anne Bond is a trained microbiologist, who worked as a technical assistant at Rohm and Haas. See United States v. Bond, 581 F.3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir.
[PDF]
09-1227 Bond v. United States (06/16/2011) - Supreme Court of the ...
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf‎
Jun 16, 2011 – Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. BOND v. UNITED STATES ...
Important Treaty Question in Bond v. United States | National ...
www.nationalreview.com/.../important-treaty-question-ibond-v-united-st...‎
Jan 28, 2013 – That's the fundamental question presented in Bond v. United States, a case in which the Supreme Court recently granted review.
that's not all of them

About 65,900,000 results (0.23 seconds)
form Google https
edit on 10-5-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
Very cool, maybe it will help me fight the Real ID act here in my state, which violates both my constitutional, religious freedom restoration act, and state constitutional rights to freedom from warrantless search (secure in my documents), and freedom of religion. Of course like everything legal it comes down to who has to money to fight.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Of course like everything legal it comes down to who has to money to fight.



Don't get me going.......



3 kids, and two ex's......

And have custody of all my kids.

That's for another thread though.........








posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Seems like if all those groups don't like it it must have some truth to it. Seems to me all the people who denounce it are the enemies of freedom.

I just don't understand the mentality of "just accept it" why?

Why should my life and liberty be jeprodized for going faster then the posted speedlimit? Or not using my directional. These laws are to make money for the state thats it. But because its too hard too fight back we should all give up, even though they can't prove one single law applys to you.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


That was my laziness. Bond v. United States

Regarding the Real ID act, one could argue this same point:

Federalism...protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions....By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.


As to the one line post....maybe a top down explanation would serve the posting public better; rather than the vague "minimal post" requirement; which is subjective as I have noted with my protest in this thread.

I can care less if the "hoax" part has come from the site owners....they are not the authority on the subject. I will take in consideration they have to say and what others have to say, but that doesn't definitively close the subject; ATS isn't that arrogant.





top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join