|
Post by avordvet on Apr 16, 2010 5:48:48 GMT -5
Release from FBI.gov DOMESTIC TERRORISM - The Sovereign Citizen Movement 04/13/10 Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world. To help educate the public, we’ve previously outlined two separate domestic terror threats—eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders. Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement. This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses. That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens: * Commit murder and physical assault; * Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel; * Impersonate police officers and diplomats; * Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and * Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes. Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups. During the past year, we’ve had a number of investigative successes involving sovereign citizens. A few recent cases: * In Sacramento, two sovereign citizens were convicted of running a fraudulent insurance scheme. Operating outside state insurance regulatory guidelines, the men set up their own company and sold “lifetime memberships” to customers, promising to pay any accident claims against their “members.” The company collected millions of dollars, but paid out very few claims. More * In Kansas City, three sovereign citizens were convicted of taking part in a conspiracy using phony diplomatic credentials. They charged customers between $450 and $2,000 for a diplomatic identification card, which would bestow upon the holder “sovereign” status—meaning they would enjoy diplomatic immunity from paying taxes and from being stopped or arrested by law enforcement. More * In Las Vegas, four men affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement were arrested by the Nevada Joint Terrorism Task Force on federal money laundering, tax evasion, and weapons charges. The investigation involved an undercover operation, with two of the suspects allegedly laundering more than a million dollars from what they believed was a bank fraud scheme. More You can help. First, “be crime smart”—don’t fall for the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens. And second, if you have information on any suspicious activities or crimes, please contact us. www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/sovereigncitizens_041310.html
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 16, 2010 9:44:05 GMT -5
These sovereign citizen pple are scary and whackos, and ned to be rounded up in my opinion. Aint no one above the law, aint no one above the constitution. Not cops, not law makers, not muslim terrorists, not even little ole Maobama. Certainly not a bunch of pple that think they are sovereign somehow. Damn, could you imagine the mess if everyone thought they were sovereign, course in a few years, we would have less population and that could be a good thing, there are way too many whackos alive today.
|
|
|
Post by NCFREEDOM on Apr 16, 2010 11:23:55 GMT -5
As a people of a society we agree to certain laws and regulations for the societal good. i.e. protection of life, property etc. However, in those set rules of society that we all agree to, we are Sovereigns, if not then we are serfs, slaves, or servants. (Not that we haven't all become that) So we may disagree or find unlawful the actions of those that align themselves with this movement, you are sovereign, or at least are suppose to be. Since those we elect or give authority to enforce the laws we all agree to, answer to us. That makes us sovereigns in one one sense of the word.
A monarch of a country would be a type of sovereign, since all power is vested in him or her. A dictator another. But in a constitutional republic(which we are slowly losing) the people are the sovereigns.
So by all accounts now the FBI says ALL American citizens are domestic terrorists since we all are sovereigns.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 16, 2010 14:23:41 GMT -5
If I understand the sovereign movement, they place themselves above all mans laws and only subject to Gods law. They can kill you and they did nothing wrong, in their eyes.
I would check into this before proclaiming yourself sovereign, understand the mantle you wear when you proclaim that.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Apr 16, 2010 16:21:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NCFREEDOM on Apr 19, 2010 5:54:36 GMT -5
Dont agree with the "movement" first, and secondly, only offering that the term sovereign can be used maliciously just like the term militia. They have kidnapped the word to allow themselves to operate outside of society's laws and morres, just like white supermists have kidapped the term militia so now it is tained by their bilge. My post was only to point out that in a constitutional republic you are the sovereign, if we dont want that responsibility then lets pack it up and allow the current socialist movement to become the sovereign. The point of the age of enlightenment was that men are created equally, the ruling class, elites, monarchs, etc have no more or less rights than the serfs, peasants, tradesmen, etc. That this great experiment said you and me and my neighbor and the politician etc. direct the course of our lives, not a king or queen or dictator that rules over you. We the People direct the course of action, thereby making you and me and my neighbor and the politian sovereigns. Is the constitution not a contract that says just that, that We the People told the governement what power they could have and anything outside of that was next reserved for the State, and then We the People told the State what power they could have and any thing not defined was left to the people (individually)? Is this not the tenant of the Tenth amendment?
Is this not the outrage of the Healthcare bill, we told them we don't want it but they acted as rulers above the people, the sovereigns of the nation? When I use the word sovereign, I use it in context of the constitution, not to allow me to work outside the laws of the nation. The United States of America is made up of 300 million sovereigns that have agreed to a limited governement with certain laws to direct society and contain man's inherent tentancy towards evil. The sovereign movement is a mutation of the true sense of the word. From the constituions defination of a sovereign citizen, I'll gladly wear the mantle, otherwise we are what they call us, domestic terrorists, seditionists, rebels, troublemakers, etc.
|
|
|
Post by onpoint on Apr 19, 2010 15:03:05 GMT -5
Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6865604487266095672#Dont be fooled by fbi propaganda folks. Sovereignty is what our country & Bill of Rights is based upon. This movement is based upon UCC law, not armed resistance. Research the "FREEMAN MOVEMENT"
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Apr 19, 2010 20:36:35 GMT -5
I for one agree with NCFREEDOM and onpoint and you should not buy into labels from the left or the Feds. One side practices the Alinski rules and the other has employed COINTELPRO tactics for years. As onpoint mentions just look back to the Declaration and the Consitution.
"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 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."
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
"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."
It would certainly seem to me that if the Creator and the Founders seemed to indicate that the Ultimate Sovereignty rested with the People then who am I to argue. If the freedoms and rights that we have are God given and if the People have instituted government both local, state and federal to protect these rights then it should be clear that ultimately the People are the one and only true sovereigns.
|
|
|
Post by onpoint on Apr 19, 2010 23:17:47 GMT -5
The B.o.Rs are the God given rights of all sovereign men. The Constitution was written to limit the .gov from taking said rights away from the sovereigns. It is every mans duty to know their rights. If one man has a supreme knowledge of the BoRs and UCC law, he may have power to usurp rights away from you without you even knowing, because you dont even know what rights you have & what process of law you are being subjected to.
If you dont understand why we have birth certificates & S.S. numbers, I suggest you do some research on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 20, 2010 12:00:22 GMT -5
OK so break this down, what is the sovereign movement. Isnt is a simple truth to them that each individual is sovereign. Meaning the highest authority in the land. How can you be sovereign and I be sovereign? If we disagree on a parcel of land, lets say, how does two sovereign pple settle that dispute, which sovereignty is higher? Or is it fastest draw is more sovereign? Not a good solution.
I dont know, the fact that the constitution says:
"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".
How can we all be sovereign and all be equal? Something does not compute. So you want to follow the constitution or your own sovereignty? They dont play well with each other. Whos the higher authority, the constitution or your sovereignty
And I really think we need a federal government. A very small and innocuous federal government, but we need a main authority. We can not just run around willy nilly enforcing this law this time and not that time and such.
No, the sovereign movement, as its been explained to me (I could be wrong, so someone break it down if I am) subjects you as a sovereign citizen to no laws of earthly origin. You only need answer to God. But what if your not a god fearing person, a person with a high moral compass. Do you see where sovereignty could lead to a mess?
Lets say your hungrry and wandering down my road, you smell my bar b q and decide you are sovereign, you have a right to eat your fill....What do I do, I damn sure aint letting some punk ass walk off the street and start dictating to me, stealing from me, I am going to shove a .45 up your buttocks and launch your balls to the moon.
No the sovereign movement is not anything I want to be part of I think. And nothing I want my friends or associates dealing with either.
|
|
|
Post by NCFREEDOM on Apr 20, 2010 12:49:47 GMT -5
Awww, but there is a US Constitutional and State Constitutional fix when two sovereigns disagree. That's where the agreed upon laws and morres of the society come to play. You are right, two sovereigns without a set of laws and boundaries would see who is the fastest draw....that leads to anarchy! But with limited government, we agree to laws so anarchy is avoided but limit government intervention so we dont give the FED/State sovereignty over us.
It is a strange balance. Tettering on the edge of both anarchy and government control. Sway one way to far and you get Total Chaos and anarchy, sway the other way and you get Totalitarianism. The result is that the citizen is the sovereign.
In your scenerio of the BBQ, I may invite you to join me for a meal, but the laws of theft, or depriving one of personal property comes into play if you invite yourself and take what is not yours. The laws of the land, or rule of law don't make you less of a sovereign. Sovereignty in the eyes of a constitutionalist is that no man or government can dictate your direction or steal your individuality or enslave you etc.
In a society where men are not the sovereigns you have a dictatorship. As I said before, the Sovereign Movement is a perversion of the term, they are really anarchists that wish to answer to no one, no law, no governement, etc.
Claiming you are sovereign makes you no more apart of the Sovereign Citizens Movement than an Athethist putting up a Christmas tree makes them a follower of Christ.
I agree Fergus, I don't want to be associated with anarchists either, but I also don't want to be associated with a White-Supremist Militia, but that doesn't mean I would not consider myself a part of the Militia.
|
|
|
Post by onpoint on Apr 20, 2010 14:01:38 GMT -5
Quote/: the Sovereign Movement is a perversion of the term, they are really anarchists that wish to answer to no one, no law, no governement, etc. I strongly disagree with your statement. These people actually study UCC law & are using their knowledge against the heavy handed .gov as a defense for defending their rights. There are hundreds of hours of documentaries & lectures from around the globe from respected men & women who can help enlighten you to the fact that you deserve sovereign rights & how to apply them to your daily life & still interact gracefully within the .gov confines. Start here with this lecture from the Granada forum. "Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship" video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6865604487266095672#This lecture is a real eye opener. Keyword "Freeman on the Land Movement, Think Free, Robert Aurthor Menard & you'll end up in info & truth up to you eye balls.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 20, 2010 15:29:47 GMT -5
Awww, but there is a US Constitutional and State Constitutional fix when two sovereigns disagree. That's where the agreed upon laws and morres of the society come to play. You are right, two sovereigns without a set of laws and boundaries would see who is the fastest draw....that leads to anarchy! But with limited government, we agree to laws so anarchy is avoided but limit government intervention so we dont give the FED/State sovereignty over us. It is a strange balance. Tettering on the edge of both anarchy and government control. Sway one way to far and you get Total Chaos and anarchy, sway the other way and you get Totalitarianism. The result is that the citizen is the sovereign. In your scenerio of the BBQ, I may invite you to join me for a meal, but the laws of theft, or depriving one of personal property comes into play if you invite yourself and take what is not yours. The laws of the land, or rule of law don't make you less of a sovereign. Sovereignty in the eyes of a constitutionalist is that no man or government can dictate your direction or steal your individuality or enslave you etc. In a society where men are not the sovereigns you have a dictatorship. As I said before, the Sovereign Movement is a perversion of the term, they are really anarchists that wish to answer to no one, no law, no governement, etc. Claiming you are sovereign makes you no more apart of the Sovereign Citizens Movement than an Athethist putting up a Christmas tree makes them a follower of Christ. I agree Fergus, I don't want to be associated with anarchists either, but I also don't want to be associated with a White-Supremist Militia, but that doesn't mean I would not consider myself a part of the Militia. Well, if you believe differently, although similarities may occur, with the sovereign pples movement, call yourself something other then sovereign. Youwill be put in the same bag as all the sovereign movement pple you are not like. The Sovereign pple movement is an established org. and well know as anarchists and above the law to law enforcement, .gov and military pple and to the common lay man as well. If your not part of them, call yourself something totally different from them. When I hear that term, I instantly think the constitutions enemy, therefore my enemy.
|
|
|
Post by NCFREEDOM on Apr 21, 2010 7:11:38 GMT -5
This has been an interesting debate. So much to learn thanks everyone for the links, I guess I see the term from a different perspective not from the perspective that I can operate outside of societal laws but that WE are the ones who direct and tell the government what they can and can't do, who will and will not represent us, the laws we will and will not tolerate and not a dictoator who tells us what we will, wear, eat, live, time to wake, time to sleep, what to beleive, who to worship, what our trade will be, who we will marry, how many children we can or can not have, who will rule over us, what rights we will have and won't have.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 21, 2010 9:28:00 GMT -5
This has been an interesting debate. So much to learn thanks everyone for the links, I guess I see the term from a different perspective not from the perspective that I can operate outside of societal laws but that WE are the ones who direct and tell the government what they can and can't do, who will and will not represent us, the laws we will and will not tolerate and not a dictoator who tells us what we will, wear, eat, live, time to wake, time to sleep, what to beleive, who to worship, what our trade will be, who we will marry, how many children we can or can not have, who will rule over us, what rights we will have and won't have. Thats called being a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Apr 21, 2010 19:33:09 GMT -5
This has been an interesting debate. So much to learn thanks everyone for the links, I guess I see the term from a different perspective not from the perspective that I can operate outside of societal laws but that WE are the ones who direct and tell the government what they can and can't do, who will and will not represent us, the laws we will and will not tolerate and not a dictoator who tells us what we will, wear, eat, live, time to wake, time to sleep, what to beleive, who to worship, what our trade will be, who we will marry, how many children we can or can not have, who will rule over us, what rights we will have and won't have. Thats called being a citizen. The thread has taken an interesting turn, it has been an informative read and I have learned some things I did not know about the movement. I too saw most of the players as Anarchists... now I'm not so sure. I'll have to do a little more reading and study.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Apr 21, 2010 20:04:41 GMT -5
Thats called being a citizen. The thread has taken an interesting turn, it has been an informative read and I have learned some things I did not know about the movement. I too saw most of the players as Anarchists... now I'm not so sure. I'll have to do a little more reading and study. "My chief concern is to try to be an humble, earnest Christian." Robert E. Lee "A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others." Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
Post by onpoint on Apr 21, 2010 20:25:26 GMT -5
quote;/ Fergus: "Thats called being a citizen."
Yes, but one must look up the definition of Citizen to know what that also means. BTW, the law society doesnt use the Websters dictionary, they use Blacks Law Dic.
Also, I got the impression we were talking about the "Freeman-on-the-Land Sovereignty Movement . My bad folks. The conversation was about an Anarchist group. Not what I thought we were talking about at all.
But if anyone is intrested in actual American Sovereign Rights, you should definitly look into the Freeman movement. But you might want to bring a Blacks Law Dict. & an understanding of law. Ide be happy to discuss this with anyone who would be intrested. I will start a new thread soon about the Freeman movement.
|
|
|
Post by NCFREEDOM on Apr 22, 2010 5:46:09 GMT -5
This discussion is a perfect example of having a civil discourse, something lacking in our society, (and sometimes on both sides and sometimes within our own) no one called anyone racist, hate filled, bigot,blah, blah blah. Each has posed their opinion in a civil well thought out manner, in some cases with background information.
Leading by example. It is refreshing to discuss a topic and be respected for your position, and be willing to adjust that opinion if information brought forth suggests that opinion may be in err. If no one will say it I will, thanks for civility
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Apr 22, 2010 7:32:43 GMT -5
This discussion is a perfect example of having a civil discourse, something lacking in our society, (and sometimes on both sides and sometimes within our own) no one called anyone racist, hate filled, bigot,blah, blah blah. Each has posed their opinion in a civil well thought out manner, in some cases with background information. Leading by example. It is refreshing to discuss a topic and be respected for your position, and be willing to adjust that opinion if information brought forth suggests that opinion may be in err. If no one will say it I will, thanks for civility Thats the sign of a society. If we could get the liberal pukes out of America, we Conservatives could have a nice time discussing all manner of things that we cant even think about today. What a country that would be, to be free to talk about anything you want to, what a novel concept that would be. We aught to try that.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Apr 22, 2010 12:59:05 GMT -5
This discussion is a perfect example of having a civil discourse, something lacking in our society, (and sometimes on both sides and sometimes within our own) no one called anyone racist, hate filled, bigot,blah, blah blah. Each has posed their opinion in a civil well thought out manner, in some cases with background information. Leading by example. It is refreshing to discuss a topic and be respected for your position, and be willing to adjust that opinion if information brought forth suggests that opinion may be in err. If no one will say it I will, thanks for civility I was thinking of this concerning the HK interviewer who cut him off. They should follow the rules of debate. Each person has an allowed amount of time to speak without interuption switching back and forth.
|
|