I wouldn't. This is what "sovereign citizens" don't understand.
They were right about the details where they went wrong was expecting criminals to play by the rules, even their own rules. OG autismos, really. Clever, but lacking street smarts.
There is even a fancy new phrase from the bar association to deal with them. Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).
Fair, Yet play by “the rules”. Still undefined. Make them define them with the constitution and bill of rights as OUR backbone. When were “those rules” defined. Love our attorneys, but 99.9% default to precedent. When was that set? By whom? Constitutional? Then? Now? We need to ask the questions or nothing will change!
I think you miss my point. You speak as though you assume these people are going to listen and give you a fair shot following a spirit of justice; not like they are an ancient cult of organized criminals aiming to clothe their naked villainy in odd ends stolen from Holy writs and seem a saint, when most they play the devil.
The only winning move in their games is not to play. Q himself said the military was the only way. Jesus said the same about avoiding the courts at all costs. If a man wants your coat, give him your shirt also. If a man wants you to walk a mile with him, walk two. Also, Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
For example, apparently at some point people tried to 'digitize' the modern 'law', but failed because it's either too vague or outright contradicts itself. AI couldn't make sense of it, because there is no sense in it. It's a hodgepodge they can use however they like, to rule whatever they want, and on the surface it seems rational and fair.
"The power of the lawyer lies in the uncertainty of the law"
Criminals are in control, and although they have their rules, you can't trust them to obey them. Many people hoping to expose their crimes have been murdered. I'm sure the criminals break some rules to do that, but they don't care. Military very likely is the only way and I pray they help us.
That wouldn't mean anything to your run-of-the mill district judge. Several years ago I knew one pretty good,he didn't know shit about stuff like this.
A few years ago I did a little research on this and found that if you do this and you are receiving any Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid you will forfeit all Government payouts.
I haven't got that far. I met a guy in ‘90s in Texas who asked his local police if they would let him drive without state id. He wrote God’s name Yahweh on a card, his name and a picture of himself and address on the other side, and as long as he stayed driving in his county, he was alright.
I think so. Another person, common law litigator, Lyn Paladin of Utah, taught a small class in the ‘90s that judges have made their own judge-made common law on top of the statutory laws for licensing. She was a mother of 10, said her religion did not allow her to celebrate or give out her birthdate, so she could even get state Id. She filed a lot of habeas corpus liberty interest motions with local courts whenever she was detained for driving without a license. She taught that now there’s no getting away with it and people are at the mercy of their local police & judges.
Wrongfully made precedents can be overturned. A big problem is attorneys and judges and law schools have this “inherent police power” of the states. From the time of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “the law is what I (the judge) says it is” — so we would benefit from some liberty oriented state ballot initiatives and constitutional revisions to check the powers of the states.
That is why they throw out people who favor jury nullification.
The LAW is what the Constitution says. These judges need to be slammed with 18 241/242 + given the fact they act in concert: racketeering causing irreperable harm + waging war on the Constitution.
A good example of this would be laws that violate the second amendment. People should be allowed to keep weapons to throw off a tyrannical government. If this tyrannical government had bigger, better weapons it would make sense for the people to be allowed to have bigger, better weapons.
I wouldn't. This is what "sovereign citizens" don't understand.
They were right about the details where they went wrong was expecting criminals to play by the rules, even their own rules. OG autismos, really. Clever, but lacking street smarts.
There is even a fancy new phrase from the bar association to deal with them. Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolaw
Fair, Yet play by “the rules”. Still undefined. Make them define them with the constitution and bill of rights as OUR backbone. When were “those rules” defined. Love our attorneys, but 99.9% default to precedent. When was that set? By whom? Constitutional? Then? Now? We need to ask the questions or nothing will change!
I think you miss my point. You speak as though you assume these people are going to listen and give you a fair shot following a spirit of justice; not like they are an ancient cult of organized criminals aiming to clothe their naked villainy in odd ends stolen from Holy writs and seem a saint, when most they play the devil.
The only winning move in their games is not to play. Q himself said the military was the only way. Jesus said the same about avoiding the courts at all costs. If a man wants your coat, give him your shirt also. If a man wants you to walk a mile with him, walk two. Also, Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
For example, apparently at some point people tried to 'digitize' the modern 'law', but failed because it's either too vague or outright contradicts itself. AI couldn't make sense of it, because there is no sense in it. It's a hodgepodge they can use however they like, to rule whatever they want, and on the surface it seems rational and fair.
"The power of the lawyer lies in the uncertainty of the law"
Law is fluid. Rights are inherent. Bring it up.
Bring it up where?
Criminals are in control, and although they have their rules, you can't trust them to obey them. Many people hoping to expose their crimes have been murdered. I'm sure the criminals break some rules to do that, but they don't care. Military very likely is the only way and I pray they help us.
The term "sovereign citizen" is propaganda created by DS.
Perspicuum est, if you just look at the words: Sovereign means you are the ruler and citizen means you are obligated to the government.
We all need to understand this. Don't let the followers of Bernay's control you!
That wouldn't mean anything to your run-of-the mill district judge. Several years ago I knew one pretty good,he didn't know shit about stuff like this.
Up the ladder we go. It takes one.
Has anyone tried this? Any reports?
I like the idea.
Its sovereign citizen nonsense, and at BEST you'll be informed as such. At worst you get involuntarily committed or imprisoned.
The term "sovereign citizen" is propaganda created by DS.
Perspicuum est, if you just look at the words: Sovereign means you are the ruler and citizen means you are obligated to the government.
We all need to understand this. Don't let the followers of Bernay's control you!
A few years ago I did a little research on this and found that if you do this and you are receiving any Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid you will forfeit all Government payouts.
For what we’ve been paying for? Whoopdeedoo
That's correct. you don't forfeit anything you have paid for. Just more propaganda.
I haven't got that far. I met a guy in ‘90s in Texas who asked his local police if they would let him drive without state id. He wrote God’s name Yahweh on a card, his name and a picture of himself and address on the other side, and as long as he stayed driving in his county, he was alright.
Unspoken loophole?
I think so. Another person, common law litigator, Lyn Paladin of Utah, taught a small class in the ‘90s that judges have made their own judge-made common law on top of the statutory laws for licensing. She was a mother of 10, said her religion did not allow her to celebrate or give out her birthdate, so she could even get state Id. She filed a lot of habeas corpus liberty interest motions with local courts whenever she was detained for driving without a license. She taught that now there’s no getting away with it and people are at the mercy of their local police & judges.
I’d love to have a convo with you about this further. Big Picture, 35 years of precedent is nothing.
Wrongfully made precedents can be overturned. A big problem is attorneys and judges and law schools have this “inherent police power” of the states. From the time of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “the law is what I (the judge) says it is” — so we would benefit from some liberty oriented state ballot initiatives and constitutional revisions to check the powers of the states.
That is why they throw out people who favor jury nullification.
The LAW is what the Constitution says. These judges need to be slammed with 18 241/242 + given the fact they act in concert: racketeering causing irreperable harm + waging war on the Constitution.
Seems like bad advice.
this is called ignoring the fact that the government wont walk away from you and cant walk away from the government....
Ruby Ridge
Basically America is a prison?
Ruby Ridge goes WAY deeper.
Elaborate. How so?
AN OWNED ENTITY.
Very well, you’re officially an illegal alien… you have 24 hours to self-deport
A good example of this would be laws that violate the second amendment. People should be allowed to keep weapons to throw off a tyrannical government. If this tyrannical government had bigger, better weapons it would make sense for the people to be allowed to have bigger, better weapons.
I want an f-47.