This is why, because you think that you're owed Public, Common Law, American Common Law, Courts, ran by due process because all else is Private Administrative concerns:
http://www.annavonreitz.com/youroffertocontract.pdf
Dissect that thoroughly.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
first of all, forget all the sovereign citizens mumbo jumbo-many of them suffer from severe delusions, possibly paranoid schizophrenia. Some of the citations in that article don't even exist. For example, I pulled up a copy of the constitution and word searched for trustee-no where to be found. Secondly American law is mostly derived from English law, where the legislature/parliament represents the people to limit te power of the monarchy/executive branch. Rather than having one great big federal government which the people feared, they had states and they had jurisdiction over their subjects prior to the 14th amendment. States are a sovereign,and your legislators are elected to represent the people. if you disagree with them or their actions, they are still there,for better or worse, to represent their constituants. They are also the ones that define jurisdiction of the statutes to be enforced, which they typically defined, to be the governmental unit where an offense takes place-or has significant business interest within that state per international shoe.
Either the state constitution or the legislature defines how every judge is seated (by a host of various mechanisms: nomination by the governor, elected locally, etc)) even if his courtroom is "incompetent" he is still a judge so long as he was seated in accordance to state law.
The moving party averred that the respondant was residents of Alaskan. Without reading the statutes to see if that is sufficient, it is the duty of the defendant/respondant to object that the court has jurisdiction over them. The failure to object means the decision is up to the judges discretion, the failure to raise objections in the pretrial almost dooms the respondant's chances of prevailing on appeal.
Your capital letters v lower case letters is all a bunch of crap. Maybe uppercase is some type of formality to be used in limited scope under an administrative agency, but not so broadly as sovereign citizens so declares. I seen sovereign citizens pick and choose air plane regulations to try to justify arguments for cars on roadways, despite the fact they are completely unrelated. Since you are attacking legal pleadings and their use of uppercase. What matters is identity.
Although Uppercase tends to be standard in legal pleadings, I see nothing in the federal rules that require it. Some of the more common civil claims are inmate suits and because they are pro-se and often untrained in the law, they also contain a host of errors. The judge in the court room as a duty to construe his pleadings liberally as to do justice. See FRCP rule 8(e). And goodness only knows where these claims of federal trust funds are derived in the Sovereign citizens movement.
I also don't know the nature of the suit, but the use of a notary public for a property smells kind of fishy. Notories will sign just about anything presented before them so long as a person has a license. Notories are not proof that what is written on a piece of paper is fact or law-they are basically proving that the person who signed a document is the person they say they are. Was this a type of fraudulent lien action so commonly pursued by the sovereign citizens? The author makes it sound as if a notorized document confused one court as to grant them property-but that doesn't prohibit post trial relief such as an appeal, setting aside a judgment, a new trial or so forth-or even filing criminal actions for any fraud committed. I find it interesting the author doesn't attack that court as incompetent who recognized their notorized document.
As far as the UN, the US has ratified a lot of treaties. But the treaties the US signs are not autoexecuting, which means they cannot be enforced in the US courts. Secondly, the US also haven't ratified the [optional] treaties that would allow the UN to have jurisdiction for violation of the Treaties. There is really only one place to enforce UN Treaties, and it isn't because the US violated the UN treaties. But Rather when the United states violates the treaties of the Organizations of American states, in matters where the US also ratified the UN Treaties. So the ICCPR for example can be enforced in the InterAmerican courts, even though the United states has not signed the first optional protocol. For some reason the OAS has jurisdiction over the United states just for being a member state. But alas, the attack therein was against the UN, not against the OAS.
The article you linked to was full of references of the sovereign citizen school of thought, and likewise it was appropriate to caution readers of it.
There are many things, but sometimes the difference between political theory and and the sovereign citizen movement is slight.
The one that sticks out most is the upper and lowercase nonsense, as well as the idea of secret accounts in our names by the federal govt. Also what stood out was the denial that a state has [criminal] jurisdiction over a person through their statutes. It reeks of the strawperson fringe of the movement warped by bizarre delusions.
What also stood out sounded like the classic lien fraud committed by sovereign citizens also known as paper terrorism.
As far as not knowing that the legislature represents the people, is something a reasonable disenfranchised person may argue. But it is still a shared belief with the sovereign citizens. The distinction between an ordinary person is that it is more likely to be a simple belief or spur of the moment rhetoric, whereas a sovereign citizen would more likely hold onto the belief at a delusional level.
Questioning a courts jurisdiction is common for sovereigns to do, but is also a valid legal strategy-especially when a court doesn't have jurisdiction. The distinction here is that the sovereign citizens claim to not know that a state has criminal jurisdiction over people.
Invoking the UN as part of a conspiracy in US law is also not a healthy sign of mental health-it is delusional in nature. But such delusions are not exclusive to the sovereign citizens movement.
There are over 250 bonds created with my social security number and when I paid a bill using the Federal Reserve of Atlanta as the routing number and my social security number as the account number it came up as the Bureau of Public Debt. When FDR took the gold they set up Treasury Direct Accounts for people's social security number and baby bonds are created from that if you have the ss number and the person's signature such as a job application or a credit card application.
the sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. a freeman is an individual sovereign and belongs to he, himself and a citizen is a man who belongs to a nation or enterprise set up to rule him. like the romans. you wanted to be a citizen you had to jump through hoops and pay taxes but there were rewards. you didn't have to become a citizen but you were left without protection. for a man that wants to be left alone to make his own way beholden to none that is the def of a freeman. sovereign and citizen are two different things. they don't go together like peanut butter and chocolate.
You asked for examples that the document reference stuff from the sovereign citizens playbook, and i provided them. Your disagreement of law is irrelevant to what you had requested.
Article 3 of the constitution, section 2.
Article 1, section 7
The legislature, who represents the people, has the ability to pass bills, the executive branch (the sovereign) can then sign them into law. Once they are [federal] law [or equity issued from a federal court], the judiciary branch then has jurisdiction for those who violate the law.
Just because you say that the you in capital letters is a corporation, not a person, doesn't make it so nor does it deny the courts of their jurisdiction over a person or a corporation. Even the UCC capitalization provision doesn't legitimize a corportaion, the optional capital letters provisions applies to warrentees-and capital letters alone will not save a warrantee. And even if you were a corporation, the federal courts still has jurisdiction where the united states is a party or other provision of article 3 in a federal or civil claim against a person or corporation. That means that the federal courts has jurisdiction over a person, regardless if they hide behind the shell of a corporation, when there is probable cause to believe they have violated federal law. They will nail, oh will they nail, a person whose only defense appears to be that he is a rogue person of his own corporation.
You are trying to aver that judicial officers are managers of some property-specifically you say a charitable public trust.
Why do you say that it is a charitable public trust? Our rights which are property do not come from government, but from nature. The constitution is not property; It is a document that outlines the functions and parameters of our government and the judiciary has the power to interpret it the document.
A constitution and a charter are two different things, regardless of someone's opinion piece. The constitution is a constitution, it is not a public or corporate charter. Your premise then that a judge (or other judicial officer) is a trustee of a public civil trust is untenable.
Sadly, I am not up on my Hebrew. The only definition I could find for militia was מיליציה-which didn't include a definition of people. The author is your second article divined that people meant militia, and build her argument up upon a false belief-a delusion.
In your second article your author stresses how beneficial the constitution was to King George and certain Colonist. Our contenentals weren't worth the paper they were printed on following the war, and the English had significantly cut off trade with America and began dumping products making it difficult for Americans to engage in trade. It was for Americans to try to open up more trade with countries like France. England's recovery post 1790 seems to be more from the Industrial revolution, and America's for providing grains when England and France were fighting in the 1790s. You can read more of a summary of details here. your author goes on to stress the importance of a Navy in the constitution. The Navy was created in 1775 for the war, disbanded following the war, and later recreated in 1798. The navy wasn't as important constitutionally as she claims. The letters of Marque authorized by the constitution was for the private sector to handle. Article 3 of the constitution also undermines her argument that the British monarch had jurisdiction over matters of admiralty. Much of the international law was defined by Hugo Grotius almost 200 years prior. Likewise her argument that the government placed life insurance claims against us on behalf of corporations is also silly.
I don't think for a moment that she has read the declaration of independence and understood the nature of each indictment against the king. Or the sacrifices that our founders made.
There is much to be read about the founding of this country, thousands of years worth of ideas and debates. Probably would take a few years to digest the important documents and its evolution, but the basic ideas are so simple a person of ordinary intelligence can understand them. Many of the original works are public domain and translated into English. Tis better to find and read the source material when possible than some sovereign citizen quack on the internet.