Politically Incorrect
Carl McClanahan

Sovereign Citizen Movement

Posted Friday, August 5, 2016, at 4:20 PM
View 122 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I don't need to google it. I've read enough from our own local "sovereign citizen" that frequents these blogs.

    And I'm sure we can expect several painfully long, incoherent, conspiracy laden babbling responses from him.

    He will also tell you all about "The New World Order".

    There is a reason the FBI lists these people as a top terror threat. They are nuts.

    And so now we wait.....(whistle, whistle) Here Sui...c'mon boy...

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 4:52 PM
  • The woman in Baltimore recently that made the cops kill her while she held her son on her lap also claimed to be a sovereign citizen.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 5:20 PM
  • Popcorn'so ready!

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 5:35 PM
  • Sovereign citizens combine fantasy with an inability to understand law as written.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 7:22 PM
  • Quite Mike, you hit the nail on the head.....It doesn't seem right for us to all agree.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 12:04 AM
  • To paraphrase Ronald Reagan laz, you are an 80% friend, give or take.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 1:57 AM
  • You asked for it you Brain Dead Idiots!

    First I want to say this. These people you named were not sovereign citizens. A "Citizen" is a created term to represent a "person" or an "artificial entity" or "Corporation".

    The government has jurisdiction over all citizens, persons and corporations. That means if you go to court as a citizen you are under their jurisdiction and will be prosecuted.

    God did not Create Citizens. He created man and woman with unalienable rights.

    Unalienable means your rights can not be taken away, exchanged for lesser privileges nor Bartered away UNLESS You do so voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly, knowing full well what the circumstances and consequences were when you signed a contract or surrendered your rights.

    These people you named killed other people or didn't reserve their rights when arrested. Yes, you have to reserve your rights or you lose them in court.

    Did you not hear the Candidates and News Medias say "The People are the Sovereignty in this country"? You hear it almost everyday. The People are the sovereignty, not the government. People just don't know what it means.

    Have you not read your own Tennessee State Constitution in the first Article, first section, first Paragraph, where it says "That all power is inherent in the people"!



    § 1. Powers of people

    That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

    The people came to this country and "CREATED" the Governments. The Government didn't exist so it did not create the people. The People Created the Government. So it has been proven in Law that the people are the sovereignty, not the Government. It has been said what congress creates it can control. The same goes for the governments. It created employees, so they are under the jurisdiction of the government.

    There can only be one Sovereignty in the Country, so the Law, "The US Constitution" declared the People as the Sovereignty.

    Why does everyone say the Government is the Sovereignty? Because the Congress created a NEW class of Citizens with the 14th Amendment. It consisted of the Black Slaves, the citizens of the U.S. Territories, and legal immigrants who took an oath that would surrender their unalienable rights they had to become citizen of the United States and under its exclusive jurisdiction.

    The Government is "The United States", "The U.S.", "The United States of America" and "The USA". These are Corporations because they were created by the People who are the Sovereignty of this country.

    The U.S. Government is not the 50 sovereign states. It is the Government congress created and its boundaries are Washington, DC as per the US Constitution Art 1, Sect 8, Clause 17. An area 10 square miles square.

    Congress had to create Federal buildings and lands in each of the states so it could have some jurisdiction inside the states.

    That means Federal laws do not apply in the 50 states except under certain conditions. Bank Robbery, Military Bases, Naval Ports, Waterways inside the united States, fraud against the U.S., Counterfeiting, U.S. Mail violations, kidnapping and treason and of course, laws broken by a U.S. Citizen (14th Amendment Citizen).

    So you should be able to see we have two separate classes of people. We have the sovereign man or woman who is born in our country and we have the U.S. Citizens (14th Amendment Citizens) who are under its exclusive jurisdiction.

    President FDR, said the sovereign people have a right to do anything they want to as long as they don't infringe on others rights and they keep their contracts. However, he said, the 14th Amendment Citizens must pay to enjoy the privilege of doing what the American Sovereign people have the right to do. So he imposed the Licenses so the U.S. Citizens would have to pay to enjoy the same things we have a right to do freely. This licensing was done with the Trading with the enemy act. All 14th amendment citizens were included as the enemy to the United States and so they had to have a license to do business in America with Sovereign American people. Without a license, they could not contract with an American or U.S. business. All contracts were null and void and the ward of the court unless they had a license to do business in the U.S..

    So all those licenses we went out and paid for did not apply to Americans. But because no one knew any different, they kept on doing it.

    Now you have to understand that with two separate classes of people with two separate classes of laws, there is no equal protection of the law. A Sovereign is not subject to federal laws except where explained in the constitution. State laws are codes, rules and regulations. The Supreme Court says those are unconstitutional because they are lacking due process and they only apply to government agencies, their officers and employees and U.S. Citizens.

    This is what the Supreme Court has ruled on. Who are you going to argue with?

    If you will take the time to read the 14th Amendment, you will see that it says these citizens are under its exclusive jurisdiction.

    So, if 14th Amendment Citizens are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S and the Sovereign Americans are not, where does the EQUAL PROTECTION of the law come from. They have equal protection of their statutory law.

    A Sovereign is bound only by Common Law, which is Constitutional Law.

    The UCC does not Supercede the Common Law it Supplements the Common Law, because any law that is inconsistent with or contrary to the U.S. Constitution or Common Law is null and Void.

    The UCC is the Uniform Commercial Code. It is a Code. What did the Supreme Court decide on Codes, Rules and Regulations? There you go!

    A Sovereign must Govern himself/herself, because there is no authority higher than a Sovereign in which to Appeal.

    If a Sovereign kills someone, injures someone, damages someone's property or breaks a contract, he or she can be brought to face trial and pay the price. So being a Sovereign does not give them any rights to harm anyone or be destructive.

    Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior said Laws are for the lawless not the righteous.

    As a Sovereign, I have no problem obeying the laws to the best of my ability. I even obey the Codes and Regulations when I can.

    You have to keep in mind, that the cops and lawyers have no idea what I have just told you. They are taught a separate law than Common Law. So you have to flow with the world and fight it in court not resist arrest. You are assumed to be a 14th Amendment Citizen, and a cop can't let you go just because you say you are not.

    Any Questions?

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 2:17 AM
  • My question is: What would happen to you if you got caught not obeying the Codes and Regulations?

    Answer: the exact same thing that would happen to any other sovereign, citizen, person, entity, or corporation. The government has jurisdiction over people whether they call themselves sovereigns or citizens. Of course we the people have the right (duty) to change the guvment when we see fit. And every year it looks like it is getting closer to being fit.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 5:04 AM
  • fair share, That is the best answer!

    If I was caught not obeying the laws, 1 of 2 things would happen;

    1. I would be written a citation to appear in court


    2. I would be told by the cop "I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. You're free to go!"

    Little do people know it, but there are "Do Not Arrest!" lists of names, the judges put out.

    It is up to the Sovereign to KNOW what to do and How to protect their rights.

    The U.S. Constitution does NOT give you any rights.

    The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the States and Federal Government that prohibits them from violating your Rights that are protected and secured by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.

    Yes, everyone is assumed to be a 14th Amendment Citizen, so the courts can use their Codes, Rules and Regulation against you.

    As a 14th Amendment Citizen you have no standing in court. In other words you have no say so in court. It is whatever the judge says!

    You are not even allowed to defend yourself, so they claim, yet several people do, to no avail.

    Unless you reserve your Unalienable Rights before court, you don't have any rights IN court. You are at the mercy of the court. Even your lawyer can not reserve your rights. You have to demand them yourself.

    I watch, Listen and read what you people brag about. You remind me of a herd of cattle being driven to the market. You have no idea what is happening or what to do about it.

    Another view I see is a bunch of ZOMBIES who are Just walking around refusing to listen to the truth. The walking DEAD! You only believe what the media tells you about the idiots who only think they are Sovereigns, but don't govern themselves as a Sovereign.

    A Sovereign is not bound by Codes, Rules and Regulations or the Uniform Commercial Code. These are all international Laws and apply to Federal Citizens.

    The Sovereigns are, however bound by Common Law or the Laws of Nature.

    If you violate a Common Law you are punished. Murder is a violation of the Common Law. So is destroying other peoples property, and not keeping your contracts.

    You can and will face charges for these crimes and should be held accountable.

    No one is above the Law! The word Law, when used in a sentence all by itself means Common Law. When used with other words like statutory law, defacto law, color of law it is referring to color of law and not the constitutional Common Law.

    Due Process of the Law, is dejure law, and the same as Common Law, or Law of the Land.

    The Law plainly states: "A Sovereign can not be sued in his own court without his consent."

    That means YOU have to contract with the arresting officer, Prosecuting Attorney, Court Clerk, or the judge. It does not have to be a written contract. Just by answering questions is considered contracting with that person, according to color of law. However, in Common Law, you must know "exactly" what you are contracting to, about and with whom etc, or it is not a valid contract.

    Still, you can not use that in court UNLESS you reserve your Unalienable Common Law Rights before going to court.

    See how complicated it gets?

    That is why a lot of sovereign claimants go to jail or prison, because they didn't reserve their rights before going to court. By reserving your rights you don't even have to go to court UNLESS you violated a Common Law!

    So do not try this at home!

    There is a lot to know before you jump in and get smart with the New World Order, LOL.

    Have a great Zombie walk around Today.

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 2:26 PM
  • Sui,I still am confused about the issue.I thought the 14th Amendment was to give rights to everyone including foreigners.I believe it was passed in 1868,one of the reconstruction revenge laws that comes back to haunt us time and time again.Wouldn't it be better to appeal the 14th Amendment?Why should a non citizen have the same rights?Do we have the same rights in other countries?Another question for everyone? How many cops or government employees have you heard use the phrase"I think" or my interpretation?

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 5:24 PM
  • A14 defines citizenship, among other things. It doesn't give rights to foreigners. If you were born here (or naturalized) and live here then you are a citizen. It doesn't say you are a citizen and set for life if yo mama happened to walk across the border just before she popped you out. It also was punitive to the Southern states.

    So sui, if you were born here you are just as much a citizen as me or beau. And you are bound by the same laws, rules, and regulations as the rest of us.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 6:04 PM
  • beau maverick;

    Don't feel bad. Even Donald Trump said the 14th Amendment has never been decided by the Supreme Court. So here goes.

    It was created by Congress after the slaves were freed b the 13th Amendment. We had a whole new class of people who didn't have a citizenship to any country. The congress decided to create the 24th amendment to give the slaves a United States Citizenship. The catch is the US was NOT the 50 sovereign states. The United States was now a Corporation. So congress gave the slaves a Citizenship under the U.S. Corporation. Congress also decided that all the people of the territories and Islands with citizens of their own territories and Islands. Wouldn't that be great if they gave all those citizens a U.S. Citizenship under the U.S. Corporation also? That would give the United States (corporation) citizens for the first time ever.

    This little act Congress did made the United States (corporation) Sovereignty over these newly created citizens. The U.S. Never had any citizens before then and never had Sovereignty over the people. The only Sovereignty the U. S. had was given to it in the constitution at Art. 1, Section 8. It also explains where the United States is and where its exclusive jurisdiction applies.

    So to answer your first question the 14th gave a Citizenship to a class of people who had no citizenship in the U.S., Mostly Black people who were slaves.


    "The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was to confer the status of citizenship upon the numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, through native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country, or having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves." Ellen R. Van Valkenburg v. Albert Brown, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)

    Here is what the 14th Amendment says:

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized [in the United States], [and subject to the jurisdiction thereof], are [citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside]. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    [After 1868], persons born or naturalized (in) the United States (meaning District of Columbia also the Territories and Islands) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - (DC) are citizens of the United States Corporation - DC) and of the State wherein they reside. Anyone born in any of the States prior to 1868 was automatically a State Citizen. (Since then the meaning of words have been changed to confuse the people and laws). Prior to 1868 all white people and legal immigrants born in any of the states were citizens of all the states.

    14th amendment citizens are only citizens of the Corporate U.S and the State in which they reside only. See the difference in which states they were citizens of?

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

    No Rights written down there in the 14th amendment. It only recognizes privileges or immunities for citizens of the United States (After 1868). These privileges and immunities were granted by the U.S Corporation in Washington, DC. to these 14th amendment citizens.

    It is the same today as it was back then in 1868+. They have added the Civil Rights in full in their privileges and immunities.

    It gets better as we go.

    the14th goes on to say: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

    Due Process of the Law is COMMON LAW. We saw where these citizens were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Corporation located in Washington, DC.. This would not include Common Law. They are under the "Color of Law".

    So that line refers to the Sovereign people that Congress must not legislate against.

    However it does give them equal protection of the laws: 'nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These are the "color of law" not the due process Constitutional Common Law.

    If the Congress appealed the 14th amendment - who would the government have Sovereignty over? All the "Color of law" laws would be obsolete and useless.

    All new laws would have to be written and the Government would lose all control over everyone. That just isn't going to happen.

    This one is going to be the hard one to accept:

    A sovereign is not a citizen. They used to be State Citizens prior to 1868 but not a U.S. Citizen of DC. Now sovereigns has to rescend their signature on all government documents to be a legal sovereign. You are not linked to anything but God. Since you were born in this land you are here and they can not deport you. If they did where would they deport you? Back to the state, USA you were born in.

    You are not a citizen of any state or government. That is why they do not have jurisdiction over you UNLESS you injure someone, damage someone's property or dishonor a contract you entered into.

    If you remove your name from all contracts, the States nor the U.S. Government has a contract with you. If there is no contract, the court can not try you. You have to give you consent to be tried.

    so this explains why undocumented aliens can do whatever they want to as long as they don't injure anyone or do damage to any property and they keep their contract they make. (that is why the government can't wait to give them food stamps, welfare, medical attention, and a work permit, etc., etc.. It binds them as U.S. Citizens making them subject to the U.S Jurisdiction.

    So here is your other answer:

    A non-citizen doesn't have the same civil rights, privileges and immunities as a 14th amendment citizen. He/she has the same unalienable rights as a Sovereign and I think they know it. What do they have to lose by claiming Sovereignty over our Government? They just can't accept benefits in our country or they become U.S. Citizens under its exclusive jurisdiction by contracting.

    The Constitution prevent the governments from interfering with a right protected by the constitution.

    So a non citizen has the right to do anything he/she wants to do to enjoy their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as long as they don't infringe upon other peoples rights and they do not injure anyone or destroy property and keep their contracts.

    A citizen, State or Federal, has civil rights, privileges and immunities which were give by the government and can be removed from them just as quickly. They also have rstrictions on the rights, privileges and immunities.

    We should have the same sovereign rights in other countries but we are the only country where the people are the Sovereignty. So I don't believe you have any rights in other countries. Maybe human rights or some civil rights.

    Your last question:

    How many cops or government employees have you heard use the phrase"I think" or my interpretation?

    I have never heard any of them say that. But that is because they don't know the LAW! They only know the color of law that they work with. They took an oath to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution and yet they have never even read it. How can they protect something they know nothing about?

    If they don't read the Law of the Land how can they ask a question of make an intelligent guess about it.

    Thank you for your interests, beau

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 9:10 PM
  • fair share;

    Nice try!

    Now READ THIS:

    The 14th Amendment Oath of Allegiance to the United States

    The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

    that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

    that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

    that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

    that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

    that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and

    that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

    Did you understand that at all?

    These blacks and all immigrants who take the 14th amendment oath to become U.S. Citizens have to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which they have heretofore been a subject or citizen.


    "and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

    NOTE 2: That is what took their sovereignty away from them, not being slaves. They voluntarily surrendered their unalienable rights in that oath to become U.S. Citizens.

    Now can you tell me when you took that oath to become a U.S. Citizen and come under its exclusive jurisdiction? When did you take the written test? You have to take those two things to become a U.S Citizen. If you didn't take them, why would you say you are a 14th amendment citizen of the United States?

    Were you born or naturalized in a federal territory like Washington, DC or Guam, Virgin Island or one of the other Territories, or a descendant of the Black slaves who took the oath?

    Or were you born in one of the 50 sovereign states? If you were born in one of the sovereign states and not the son or daughter of a 14th amendment citizen parent, then you are a sovereign man or woman with unalienable rights.

    I was born in Indiana. That is a sovereign state and not the United States or one of its Territories, nor under its jurisdiction, so I am not a U.S. Citizen. I am a living man with unalienable rights per the U.S. Constitution and Tennessee State Constitution and the laws of The United States made in pursuant to the U.S.Constitution.

    Codes, rules, regulations, color of laws and UCC are laws that apply to 14th amendment citizens and government officials, officers and employees because they are International Laws.

    In closing, as for "bound by the same laws, rules, and regulations as the rest of us",

    I will only say, "If you say so!"

    I have explained the 14th Amendment the best I know how. If you don't get it, so what. It is not for you to understand. It is a contract that binds the Governments not the People.

    That is why the Democrats hate the Constitution. They don't want to obey it.

    The Republicans don't understand it and don't know what it says.

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 6, 2016, at 10:10 PM
  • Just so you know!

    I do not belong to any sovereign citizen movement or militia.

    I have studied Constitutional Law and found that most people who talk about the Constitution have learned it to the benefit of the government and not the Sovereign People.

    I don't go to any weekly, monthly nor yearly meetings of some kind to learn what I know.

    I read Supreme Court decisions that explain the Constitution according to the law.

    I try to explain what the Constitution says about current events to help people understand why they get away with what they do.

    Sometimes the law enforcement is wrong and sometimes the people are wrong and sometimes two separate people get different treatment.

    It is all explained in the Constitution. You just have to know all the other stuff that makes up the laws that no one ever tells you.

    That is what I do, but with no success. People have been brain washed too long to accept the truth.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 11:43 AM
  • Some people claim that Creationist Kent Hovind is part of this movement, and why he spent jail time for it (IRS issues). Here's a recent video discussion of it:


    -- Posted by Bernie_Dehler on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 12:55 PM
  • If sovereign citizens are only subject to "natural laws" then it would be a simple matter to prove the issue once and for all.

    A picture posted of a sovereign with a few ounces of cocaine would in no way put him in jeopardy of being arrested, as surely he wouldn't consent to those charges.

    Many, many people have tried to claim they are not subject to various and sundry laws (I'm not driving, I'm travelling is a great one) but it never works out for them.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 6:33 PM
  • Thirty five minutes of it not working out...


    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 6:41 PM
  • Sui,

    It appears you fell head first into the tub of brain washing.

    Perhaps your Mama tried but failed to pull you out of the wringer before you hit the rinse tub?

    But .....I am still pulling for you dude.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 7:33 PM
  • Bernie_Dehler;

    I finally got it to work enough to hear what was going on.

    The person in question was given the opportunity to go to the "Tax Court" and lost.

    He then appealed the decision of the "TAX Court" and lost again.

    First of all a TAX Court is the last thing you ever want to go in.

    A Tax Court is the Back room of an IRS Office. It is a phony court room of actors that use their codes against you. You have no defense in a "TAX Court". You have to go in a Common Law Court where you can use the "LAW" (Common Law) to defend yourself. One way to do this is to reserve your Unalienable Rights before you go to Court.

    Here is how it works: The IRS Agent gives you 90 days to petition the Tax Court, or their back room theater.

    If You petition the Tax Court, you are paying for the hearing and lawyer fees and court costs plus your sentence whatever they decide to charge you.

    Here is a nice law to know: The court must rule in favor of the defendant when there is a question about the law. (You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

    Who is the defendant when YOU Petition the Tax Court? I do believe it is the IRS!

    You are in Their court where they make up the law as they go. You can not use any law to defend yourself in a Tax Court. The Appeal is the same way. They control the appeal. The Tax court found you guilty so the Appeal will follow suit with a guilty.

    You go to Prison. That is just how simple it is to go to Prison. All the Laws you know can not be used in their Tax Courts.

    In the first video, some man was not paying taxes. He was a non taxpayer but went into a Tax Court and lost, making it look like the IRS was right in putting this man in prison. And the American idiots agreed with the fraudulent system and look down on a patriotic American who stood up for his rights.

    This happens everyday. They trick you or scare you into going into THEIR Tax Court where they control the outcome of the trial, then let you go thru their Appeal Process that they control also. You can not win in their Tax Courts. That's why so many people go to prison over Taxes.

    Guess what they do with the Tax Money they collect from people who they claim owe back taxes? 75% or more of the money goes in the pocket of the IRS Agent who was able to make this person pay the back taxes.

    You have to ask yourself, why wasn't this money used for taxpayer expenses that the taxes are suppose to be used for, if it was the law that everyone must pay Taxes?

    Also this man was earning millions of dollars in a business. That is Profit or Gain and is Taxable even by a sovereign man/woman.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 8:28 PM
  • quietmike;

    I have said it over and over again. Cops and lawyers do not know common law. They took an oath to up hold and protect the Constitution (Common Law) yet have no idea what it is or what it says, how it applies or what it means.

    So if a cop pulls you over, you had better be nice to him and do as he says. You can say I will do it, but I am doing it under duress.

    That cop is just doing his job to KEEP ME safe, so I don't want to make his job any worse or harder than it is. That cop doesn't know what you are talking about, so why try to use it to get out of a ticket. You fight it in court or before going to court. Just be sure to reserve your unalienable rights first and don't hire a lawyer. A Lawyer is an officer of the court and can not use common law to help you. He works for the court First, then you. Guess what, you are going to lose or have to pay.

    The compilation or Sovereign Citizens being pulled over is even comical to me, even thou I know what they are saying.

    They are saying it to the wrong man. The cop can be sued if you win your case in court. However, you have to go in court as a Sovereign man or woman with some sort of proof. The judge isn't going to believe you if you just say I am a Sovereign Man etc., etc.. Most lower court judges don't understand the Sovereign right of people either. Most of the time you have to get a Federal Judge who will understand all this sovereignty.

    To answer your first remark, your right.

    This is how you do it. You do something to get arrested. You use your sovereign knowledge to have the case dismissed. The judge should put you on a "do Not Arrest" list so when a cop pulls up your id, he will see this "Do Not Arrest" Warning. The cop will tell you, you are free to go. If he doesn't he will get in big trouble by the judge and possible court action against him.

    Now is a good time to laugh! Sounds so ridiculous doesn't it. But what if I am telling you the truth? You won't know because no one will ever tell you this not even a cop

    who lives next door to you.

    The only way to find out, is to get stopped for a tail light out or no turn signal. If you get a ticket, you aren't on a list.

    If you had a few ounces of cocaine, you better be able to prove you had no intention of selling any of it. That would make it commercial and a crime. The arresting officers and there would probably be many there to arrest you, would charge you with process with the intent to sell. There has to be a crime and the intent to commit a crime to be tried. They see you have the cocaine but do they know for sure what you were going to do with it? No, but they know what they are going to put on the charge. Criminal intent to sell.

    Also, you have to be aware of Federal charges on Federal property. If you are sitting in the court house parking lot, then it is under federal jurisdiction. You can bend over and kiss you butt good bye.

    Nothing is going to work in court if you don't first reserve your rights and go to court in you own common law rights. That means you can't hire a Lawyer. If you hire a Lawyer, you just waived your rights to the court. You might as well be in a IRS Tax Court.

    Again, I want to say, it is much, much better for you to do as the officer says, then fight it in court. However if you are not a Sovereign, or know if you are or not, you will be found guilty. The good thing is, you may not be tasered or pepper sprayed if you go quietly.

    Since no one here believes in the People being the Sovereignty, I would safely say everything will roll on just as it is today. People will go to prison for no reason at all except that they didn't know their rights.

    The Bar Association has changed the meaning of word in the laws to confuse you and be tried for God know what. For example, a drivers license is merely a permit to do business on the highway. That makes your driving a commercial business and is a contract with the courts. UNLESS?

    Believe this or not, they are always changing he law in the law books that Sovereigns use frequently to stop them from winning any cases.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 9:19 PM
  • fair share;

    Did you and beau maverick think to look for your 14th Amendment Citizenship papers today that proves you are United States Citizens?

    That doesn't really matter, because the United States and State Courts want to believe you ARE 14th amendment citizens.

    It is more important to prove you are not U.S. Citizens and under its jurisdiction.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 9:24 PM
  • Blessed Assurance;


    My MAMA died a few year back, so she can't help me much anymore.

    I just gotta be a big boy and help myself.

    You Know what? I always wondered why all dem people came over to da house on Mama's Wash day. She musta been brain washing all dem people. Funny hows you would know that unless she brain washed yall too.

    Okay, Now, let's keep it clean!

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 9:41 PM
  • Sui, explain more about this "do not arrest" list.

    How does a judge know which officers to give it to?

    Is it just in the local community, statewide, or nationwide.

    What exactly is a "common law court"? Is it general sessions court, circuit court, or chancery court?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 11:18 PM
  • Come on sui and BA, haven't we had enough of the mama jokes on these blogs recently?

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Aug 7, 2016, at 11:33 PM
  • quietmike;

    First you have to believe that there are Sovereign men and women who know how to reserve their rights. They are not your fanatic sovereign citizens group. A sovereign is one man or woman. Only YOU can protect your rights.

    Let's say you are a sovereign and you have to go to court over something. You did not injure anyone, do any property damage nor breach a contract you made.

    You could not have robbed a bank, or committed any federal crime or committed a crime on federal land or territory either.

    Then you could stand on your rights and inform the courts that you are not a U.S.Citizen and therefore you won't be going to their court

    or you could go to court in propria persona. "acting on one's own behalf, generally used to identify a person who is acting as his/her own attorney in a lawsuit" You are standing in your own Rights".

    That is why YOU MUST Reserve your Rights before court. If you don't reserve your rights, what rights will you be standing on?

    If you go to court, standing on your common law rights, "The court must recognized your common law rights. Art 6 U.S. Constitution.

    "...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing."

    Here is the thing. The lower courts can not decide Common Law so they can not argue it. But you have to get everything on the court record. Here is way. If the judge denies you your rights, he is committing treason and he knows it. So you make sure you get everything in the court record, so he can't deny it.

    Also by revealing your rights everyone in the court will hear what you are saying and what the judge is going to do with you. In most cases, the judge will make you sit down and be quiet and hear your case after the court is cleared or just postpone your case.

    This can be very embarrassing to a sitting Judge. He may have your name added to his list. It then goes in their computers under your name.

    The status most law enforcement sees on your background check is similar to the following in red letters:




    You may have to go into a federal court with a federal judge to get this red tag on your back ground check. I will never know for sure because they claim no officer will ever reveal this to you.

    My understanding is you have to do it in each to get listed or do it Federally for all levels. My first time was with the IRS I have never done it locally. I have been IDed by TN Highway Patrol twice in license checks and once in a pull over. They were very quick and polite. I always thank them and tell them to have a nice day.

    Just what is a Common Law Court was always a mystery to me. I could never get anyone to tell me where there was one in TN. I even asked the court clerk. He couldn't tell me.

    Here is what I found out. The difference in the two courts:


    District Court of the United States = Article III (judicial) court

    COLOR OF LAW COURT - Article I and/or Article IV

    United States District Court = Administrative Article I (legislative) or Article IV (territorial) court

    But like I said, If you reserve your rights before you go to court, you can claim them in any court room as long as you go in propria persona. If you go in court in personam you are saying you are a "person" and the court doesn't have to listen to your common laws. The court takes over the jurisdiction and you go straight to jail, pass go and do not collect $200.

    There is a way to get out of going to court. That is the best way to go. That way they can't trip you up and make you say you are a person or citizens. Sometimes it's not what you say, but what you do that gives them jurisdiction in court.

    Complicated? Yes it is, just when you think you know what you're doing you find out there is something else you have to do. Very dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. I just like to make people aware of their rights. What they do with them is up to them.

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 12:41 AM
  • fair share

    BA doesn't know what to say so he just belittles people. I play along to humor him. He doesn't seem to last long.

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 12:49 AM
  • The status most law enforcement sees on your background check is similar to the following in red letters:





    A few very obvious problems with that assertion.

    Cops would have to stop, detain, and interrogate you to even know who you are to know you are on this list.

    Background checks are not run on the average person who is arrested by cops anyway.

    Most cops around here don't have computers in their car so they wouldn't see this if it actually existed. Cops run you for wants and warrants through their dispatcher (as the state and feds are rather picky about who has access to their databases) when they have you stopped. They don't run your criminal history unless you've already been arrested and they are bolstering their case for trial, or detectives think you're a suspect in a crime and are looking for similar history.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 7:06 AM
  • quietmike;

    This is true in most cases. If they have no reason to pull you over, they would never know this about you because they would never read it.

    If they did call your ID in to the dispatcher, the dispatcher would see the warning on their background search and relay this to the cop inquiring. They would do everything to protect this officer against a law suit.

    I don't confess to know how their background checks work, but if a background check isn't done, YOU COULD be detained at the least, maybe arrested if you resist. At this point, more than one cop would be on the scene and they might check out your background to see if you are a trouble maker or have a reason to run.

    In the case, where no check is done, you will have to go to court as a sui juris, or inform the court that you are not a person under their jurisdiction in a specific and timely manner???

    This is why I always try to obey the color of law, to prevent any confrontation in the first place. The law enforcement officers are only doing their job according to what he/she has been taught. I respect them for what they have do as cops, considering they don't know the law.

    I hate it when they have to arrest resistors who don't know how to defend their rights in court. These people make a Sovereign look stupid in the eyes of the news media commentators, who speak ill of the Sovereign people, because they know absolutely nothing about the constitution nor who is the sovereignty in America, as if a Sovereign is the bad guy.

    If you are just on a local Judges list, your local cops would have access to it.

    If you are on a State list, the State officials would have access to their State's lists of names and your local would also have access to your background check.

    If you are on a Federal background list I believe ALL Federal, State and Locals would be told to back off, including the sheriff's departments.

    But, not ever seeing one, who knows? It is all hearsay! So it is best to just keep your nose clean and obey the laws.

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 1:39 PM
  • Sui,

    I don't last long because I value my time. As much as you have to say it is not worth even trying to untwist your coiled up ramblings of ying-yanging.

    I find it much simplier and rewarding just to smile and blow off your copy and paste inverted context ramblings.


    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 8:33 PM
  • That's probably why you don't really know anything about being FREE for example or what the cost of freedom is. I can live with that. You should probably be somewhere else right now doing your thing, whatever that is. And he just Poofed off the blog!

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 8, 2016, at 8:52 PM
  • Yes,most people don't know freedom.QuietMike, you are right about the local law enforcement, but keep in mind most of them are here because they couldn't get on anywhere else. Hence,the unprofessional behavior,lack of skills,and the tremendous burden on taxpayers for losing lawsuits.In short,they are the benchwarmers of law enforcement with incompetent coaches.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 8:34 AM
  • Beau, with due respect, you're full of it.

    The actual cops here are very professional and conscientious about their job.

    That the county was silly enough to elect someone who had already been convicted of violating someone's civil rights when he was a deputy, to the the office of sheriff, is the fault of both the voters and that sheriff,not the other cops.

    The lawsuits were a result of that sheriff's "I'm the big cowboy in town" attitude, and the fact that he surrounded himself with sycophants as chief deputies.

    None of the lawsuits were a result of the actual street cops actions IIRC.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 9:02 AM
  • I beg to differ with you.I've had dealings with a couple of unprofessional county boys.One when a dog was attacking livestock and he got smart.Saying just it's head off.Another mouthed off to me when I stopped to offer a statement on a road rage incident I witnessed. They are a product of poor leadership and lack of accountability. You forgot to mention the crybaby letter from the particular wanna be cowboy because in my eyes.He is a Walmart cowboy.His officers are a example and product of poor leadership.The whole department is a tremendous embarassent to the county.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 9:34 AM
  • BTW,can I Google that story of him violating someone's civik rights?Maybe that explains some of the attitude I've seen lately in some of the officers.I noticed a greater sense of hostility,lack of respect,lying and false accusations by the department.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 9:43 AM
  • Beau, you do know that sheriff is no longer in office?

    Here's a link that describes part of the case.


    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 10:13 AM
  • The last sheriff that was in?I feel the current one is no better and some officers reflect that.At the end of the day,no one makes a person become a police officer.It takes a special person who can be unbiased,calm,accoutable and brave in dangerous situations.Even though the last sheriff wasn't the best,most of the officers I met or dealt with were professional,took their job seriously and were helpful.I can't argue with anyone on the fact that the department was left in bad shape but I still see no improvement.Blaming the last sheriff for the problems is no different than trying to ride a dead horse.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 10:47 AM
  • The last sheriff is the one who cost the county millions in lawsuits.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 12:40 PM
  • The current one is no better.It's just a matter of time before the department gets sued and how about the jail?

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 1:43 PM
  • The jail is old and heavily used. That isn't the current sheriff's, or any sheriff's fault, it's just the nature of the beast.

    Most departments get sued several times a year. It's part of the business. Most are people who are ****** they got caught, others are parents who just can't accept their precious little angel is actually a criminal.

    A very few actually have merit. Time will tell for sheriff Swing, but in no way is he as bad as the last sheriff.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 4:10 PM
  • You have to ask yourself, Why does the rest of the world look up to America as the "LAND OF THE FREE"

    They know that the American People are the Sovereignty and tell the government what it can and can not do.

    Osama Ben Laden knew this and was trying to Bankrupt America. He hated the American People, not the government. He wanted to kill all the Americans that he could.

    The United States of America is the ONLY Country in the World, that I know of, where the people are the SOVEREIGNTY!

    People all around the world want to come here so they can live a life of Freedom.

    Little do they know that when they come over here, they become slaves to the government, not the Sovereignty.

    They exercise more rights here in America than the American people do. They are happy with the Civil Rights and don't hesitate to exercise them. When have YOU ever exercised your Unalienable Common Law Rights or even Civil Rights (for those who think they are 14th amendment citizens)?

    You never do. You watch the blacks and other immigrants claim their civil rights but you don't.

    Why? Because You want the Government to tell you what your rights are because You don't know what they are!

    The immigrants know what their new rights are and claim them. You don't claim your rights, so you lose them to the immigrants who use them against you.

    The Law says you can not infringe upon anyone's rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit to Happiness. In other words, no one has the right tell you what you can do or not do, nor do You have the right to tell others what they can and can not do. It is your life to do as you wish as long as you don't infringe upon other people's rights.

    Laws are man telling others what they can do and can not do. This is illegal to do to a Sovereign in America. So you are not bound by man's laws, unless you are "Subject" to their jurisdiction. You are only bound to obey laws of Nature, God's law.

    As more and more foreigners come into our Country it becomes diluted with more "Subjects to the government", giving the U.S. Government more control over the weak minded people who don't know nor claim their rights.

    That is what the "Powers-To-Be" have worked for all these years. No Gold or Silver Money, No Rights in Federal Buildings, Courts, Airports and Government Lands. No Standing in courts to claim your rights, or defend yourself. You are a Stawman/Strawwoman and "subject" to International codes, rules and regulations.

    -- Posted by sui on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 4:29 PM
  • Wow.If you really want to see abuse of power,watch the TN ABC board in action.They create crime to justify their existence.Being a bar/restaurant manager,I teach all employees to check id's, ask questions and deny a sale until absolutely sure that the person is 21 and over.In response to QuietMike, wasn't it stated by various officers,family memebers that they are afraid of doing there jobs because of a lack of manpower,back.up and public support?I remember seeing the responses to the letter on their Facebook page.Not to sound uncaring or unsympathetic, but if your scared to do your job as a cop,then maybe your in the wrong line of work.Yes there's many frivolous lawsuits against departments but obviosly the juries in our county saw it differently.If the department wants public support then it starts with them.Public service, knowing the citizens, and being involved in community activities. The police officers and security at the Birmingham gun show,I worked last month were very top notch in community service and assistance.Matter of fact it was the best gun show I've been to in years.When I saw the officers at the Williamson county fair interacting with the public,made a difference in the public's behavior.I'd like to see out department take a good look at itself and ask what can they do to make a difference.It starts at the top and works it's way down.Leadership and education are the keys to success.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 5:01 PM
  • I seriously doubt there's concerns of lack of public support when people bought officers lunch and have shown other signs of support for weeks after the Dallas shootings.

    The lack of manpower is an issue for the county commissioners, as they control the purse strings.

    I guess the sheriff could sue the county for not providing the necessary funds, like the Rutherford County sheriff did.

    As for being scared on the job, any cop who says he hasn't been scared on the job is either a liar or a fool.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 6:25 PM
  • Now we can get down to business.He should take the commissioners to court as public safety and Officers safety is at risk.Buying a few lunches is a short term thing.Used to be we gave officers a permanent discount as a way to thank them and so they know us and we'd know them.I wouldn't follow the direction of Rutherford counties sheriff with his legal troubles.As for public support,a couple of the deputies have a long way to go in order to ever get my respect or support.Follow the example of the new animal control director who had alot of trust to gain back.Out my way,I constantly see horrible wrecks,watched a person get airlifted out,and have only seen 2 officers on the road 2 times in the last month.I drive to work in the morning, late afternoon and late at night.There needs to be patrols on the roads.The scared part came from comments I read on the departments facebook page which in a sense are inappropriate and nonprofessional.The jail is a troublesome factor that stretches back a few years.As long as we have people who don't know how to act,we'll always have troubles.I only hope that we can get help from the state and the federal government to improve our departments

    and give them the necessary tools to perform their jobs.Also I believe that good cops need to take a stand against the bad ones.Hold everyone accountable.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 8:27 PM
  • Beau, I personally haven't had much dealings with our county sheriff dept. But thru my job I have met and worked with our city police officers and I can assure you they are not "benchwarmers" or only here "because they couldn't get on anywhere else".

    A couple of them I've met have been on the force for over 20 years wouldn't want to go anywhere else.

    They are very professional and we all should feel lucky to have them here.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 9:55 PM
  • Rocket Valentine, my comments are only towards the county officers.The city officers seem alot more professional and I remember some of them helping at the Mark Kelly Cancer walk a couple of months ago.You don't hear about lawsuits,inappropriate behavior or a general lack of accountability.It seems our troubles lie with the county department.Everytime I see a city officer they are working,assisting or being positive roles models.To tell the truth,in my lifetime I've witnessed more inappropriate behavior from county officers vs city officers.Matter of fact I stated earlier the professional behavior and helpfulness of the Birmingham police.Even the Nashville department has improved tremendously in being more professional.Our county can improve tremendously when we get the resources,a strong leader and hold everyone accountable.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 9, 2016, at 10:06 PM
  • In addition to sovereign citizens there are people who claim to be Confederate States of America government officials.We had one that believed reenactors are supposed to be his soldiers and that he was a general.Funny thing the guy couldn't drive to Memphis or hold a decent job.We also have run off several clan members.Now we have BLM,sovereign whatever, KKK,Arran Nation and CSA government people.I forgot Black Panthers and the Nazis.I've seen several of these people and most don't have a job or even a high school diploma.They all share a universal trait.Hate with a Capitol H.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 12:05 AM
  • I will have to say, this has been a most interesting thread yet. It's interesting from what I gather, everyone believes in the same thing, but call it different ideals. I see the point of view of everyone and can't say I disagree.

    -- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 8:58 AM
  • It seems we have a resident(?) who espouses an ideology but apparently insists he is not a member of any organization founded on the positions he takes. He/she/it evidently doesn't know what he/she/it is. I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.

    He(?) seemingly would have us believe if you accept the ideological precepts of the Democratic (Republican, et al) Party you are not really a democrat, et al, unless you pay dues and go to meetings, ergo, you are not a member of the sovereign citizen movement unless you pay dues and go to meetings! As I find in the literature, Sui stems from a Chinese Dynasty of the late 6th or early 7th century or more likely, given statements on the record, is from the Latin and means adherent. I say the record is clear as to being an adherent of an ideology that is radical and inane and, per the FBI, dangerous.

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about this concept is nowhere in the literature exists a single ruling Supreme Court finding supporting the notion there are two classes of citizens in this country. Given this the commenter in question here knows more than the tens of thousands of judges and legal scholars who have peopled this country for the last two hundred plus years! Amazing!

    Like most admirers of an ideology and group that is considered a terrorist organization, the A FBI's words not mine, this person likes to lurk in the shadows to plan and/or act if they are so driven. As an example, in answer to my admonition as to why he hides in the bushes and lacks the courage to identify himself, he said, "You actually want me to sign my real name to this? That would be very stupid, don't you think?"

    A few comments relating to the core beliefs of the Sovereign Citizen Movement: "All white people and all immigrants who became US citizens before the 14th Amendment was enacted(sic) are sovereignty of this country, not the government"......."So there is a superior class of people in this country and people need to accept it." Further: "If you are no better than a "subject to the government", how can you be superior to a sovereign white man? Facts are facts." Lastly: "A white man isn't bound by federal laws unless they volunteer to come under its jurisdiction."

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 11:38 AM
  • The last paragraph sounds like the same ideology of the KKK.However,I'm still unclear where the terroism part comes into play.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 4:51 PM
  • The last paragraph are quotes from Sui on this blog in the recent past. As for as terrorist is concerned, you'll have to call the FBI and ask them why they consider these people to be the top domestic terror threat in the US.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 6:21 PM
  • Now folks.....it seems to be getting interesting.

    Sick im' sui.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 8:00 PM
  • I read about this movement on a FBI page and I can't believe that this has been allowed to exist.I encourage everyone to Google it and read about it.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 11:12 PM
  • It's 3:11 A.M.. Too late to start a comment now, but I will be back to bring the fear of God in you none-believers, later today.

    Oh, how I love it. Don't shut the blog down Carl.

    HINT: When you see those videos of those so called "Sovereign Citizen Movement" "persons" start screaming and crying when they get stopped by a nice courteous Policeman, Do They L@@K and Sound like someone who is a Sovereign, who has complete control over his/her own legal affairs?

    I think not. They are people who hear or read something and don't follow up with learning what it is all about. I have said over and over again, a Sovereign must govern him/herself. What part of that don't people understand?

    Carl, be sure to come back and read my comments, because I will bring the Supreme Court Decisions with me, for you to choke on and anyone else who doesn't know who the Sovereignty is in America.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 3:28 AM
  • If that's true then why are they listed as a terroist threat?The FBI listed several incidents and definitions of the movement. Granted there are extremists in every group but this movement is being treated no differently than AL Queda.Please enlighten the rest of us.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 8:38 AM
  • Sovereign Citizen Movement #1

    Are you ready Carl?

    Okay, I am going to do this in short Bursts, so people might be able to follow what I am saying.

    Obama and the FBI have named this crap as the Sovereign Citizen Movement and the News Media is eating it up!

    A Sovereign is One (1) man or woman. No one can claim your sovereignty except YOU! You must know how to claim your Sovereignty or you do have any. The people linked to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, Group, ideology, are just people who understand what sovereignty is and who it applies to but don't know how to protect their sovereignty.

    Carl you claim in your literature, that I, Sui, stems from a Chinese Dynasty of the late 6th or early 7th century or more likely, given statements on the record, is from the Latin and means adherent. Carl McClanahan, that all sounds like the ideolgy of an idiot.

    I say the record is clear as to being an adherent of an ideology that is radical and inane and, per the FBI, dangerous. (You have to remember, that if the people are the Sovereignty, that presents a real Problem for the FBI who think THEY are in charge. Of course they are threatened and have to debunk this truth as a lie, and they will use any means possible.

    Carl's Question #1;

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about this concept is nowhere in the literature exists a single ruling Supreme Court finding supporting the notion there are two classes of citizens in this country.

    Here is a Supreme court decision Carl, that proves there are 2 governments and each of the 2 governments have citizens of their own.

    "There is in our Political System, [two governments] a government of the several states AND a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." - U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed 588

    Now it appears, Given this (Supreme Court Ruling), the commenter in question here, Sui, apparently does knows more than the tens of thousands of judges and legal scholars who have peopled this country for the last two hundred plus years and didn't know that was the LAW! Amazing! Yes, I, Sui, would say that is Amazing!

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 3:53 PM
  • Sovereign Citizen Movement #2

    Before you can understand the Law, you have to understand the U.S. Constitution.

    The forefathers in the colonies created a Congress and a Government (of the People, By the People and For the People). Now if you read the Constitution, this congress was set up in a Territory, named Washington, District of Columbia. It wasn't even a state nor is it a state in the continental 48 States today. It is a Territory State.

    The People gave the government certain powers over the people, but very limited. The "Congress" had authority over the people in these situations, set forth in Article 1 Section 8. The president had the power to make sure the laws were executed. All of these powers were given to our Congress, not the White House Administration.

    America had 14 presidents who ran the country through the first government, the Continental Congress, which started in 1774.

    Where is this United States Government? According to the U.S. Constitution it is located in DC. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

    Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with respect to a state" NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287

    Just explain to me, How a "Foreign Corporation" has jurisdiction over a man in one of the Sovereign states?

    "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears."

    Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo 336, U.S. 281 (1948)

    The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and

    change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 12 L.Ed 581

    "There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Jullard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421

    "...While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act."

    Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 .

    "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law for it is the author and source of law;

    Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopins 118 U.S. 356 .

    "It is doctrine of common law, that the Sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent."

    The Siren vs U.S. 74 U.S. 152 .

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 4:57 PM
  • Sovereign Citizen Movement #3

    Althou I have titled these comments as Sovereign Citizen Movement, I do not condone the idiots who don't know what they are doing and cry like little babies when they get arrested. Some even get killed by cops because they don't know what they are doing.

    So now Carl, that I have shown you the Supreme Court Decision on two governments and two different Citizens, I will show you another Supreme Court that should BLOW your little Mind, but I doubt it will phase you.


    The following definition of Sovereignty is from Bouvier's 14th Edition Law Dictionary (Quoting from 4 Wheat, 402)

    "It has been justly thought a matter of important to determine from what source the United States

    derives its authority...The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered

    into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an organic law established by the people. To this we answer: "We the people...ordain and establish this Constitution"...The government of the state had only delegated power (from the people) and even if they had an inclination, they had no authority to transfer the authority of the Sovereign People. The people in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole, therefore, emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution and the laws of the states,whether made before or since the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it.



    Sovereignty... "Resides with the People of the states"

    "The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and

    change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 12 L.Ed 581

    "There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Jullard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421

    "...While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act."

    Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 .

    "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law for it is the author and source of law;

    Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopins 118 U.S. 356 .

    "It is doctrine of common law, that the Sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent."

    The Siren vs U.S. 74 U.S. 152 .

    The Term Person does not include the Sovereign!


    United States vs. Fox 94 U.S. 315 .

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 5:12 PM
  • Carl......Carl.....where art thou??

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 5:37 PM
  • Sovereign Citizen Movement #4

    It's easy to get on the FBI Terrorist watch list.


    Carl said, "As an example, in answer to my admonition as to why he hides in the bushes and lacks the courage to identify himself, he said, "You actually want me to sign my real name to this? That would be very stupid, don't you think?""

    With my knowledge of Sovereignty and the Dr Jeckle/Mr. Hide Governments we have, I don't need people who are brain Dead coming to my house and threatening me or my family's life. I believe in having the right to bear arms, but I chose not to bear arms. I don't hunt and don't need guns around for my grand children getting hurt, or worse, hurting me, lol. If I can't wake up the minds of the people to their rights, what must they think?

    If you read the Trading with the enemy Act of Oct 10, 1917 you would see that prior to the repeal of the act in 1933, people were referred to as U.S. Citizens. We the people were U.S. Citizens prior to 14th Amendment. Now a U.S Citizen is a 14th amendment citizen. Some people claim they are State Citizens and not U.S Citizens.

    Here is the problem with this:

    A president was elected and he appointed most of his government employees. Then over the years the governments got bigger and bigger, Now it is too big. where the trouble comes in is the government was a government of constitutional law and limitations. When the Government went Corporation, it actually created a second government using the very same employees. They have to govern according to the constitution, but when governing for the 14th amendment citizens, they do not have to obey constitutional laws. They can now use the color of law for these U.S. Citizens because they are under its jurisdiction. So every government employee has two jobs to perform, one with constitutional limitations and restrictions and one without any restrictions.

    Then the States did the same thing. Congress made corporations out of each state so it could rule over the states in some matters and reach the 14th amendment citizens in the several states who are under its jurisdiction. Congress only has very limited powers over the Sovereign people per the Constitution. You would think Senators and Congressmen/women were the Sovereignty.

    Wait a minute! When congress created a corporation out of the United States and created the 14th amendment citizens, that is just what it did. Congress created Sovereignty over the Federal Citizens. The United States Corporation just became the Sovereignty over its citizens that it NEVER had before.

    The U.S Government NOW has Sovereignty over its 14th amendment citizens that it never had before the 14th amendment was passed. It (the U.S. Corporation) now has to trick you into believing that you are a U.S. Citizen because you were born in the United States. If the U.S. Corporation can pull that off, they would have Sovereignty over every living being in the United States. We the people who are the real Sovereignty, have to prevent the government from doing that. At least prevent the government from pulling their racket over on us.

    The people are just like the Zombies in the movies just walking around not knowing anything and believing everyone should just lay down and worship a corporation who created their body and mind.

    If you are that ignorant, you get what you deserve! People will Google anything and everything to prove someone wrong, but not to learn the truth.

    If you can read these comments I made and not say anything about them with proof, How can you even think about arguing with a Sovereign?

    "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.

    He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."

    CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

    Now everything I have said here is backed up with Constitutional Law!

    Who among you can repeal a Supreme Court Decision?

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 6:41 PM
  • Sovereign Citizen Movement #4

    beau maverick;

    It sounds like the ideology of the KKK, but a Sovereign does not go out and do property damage or bodily harm to anyone. those are laws against Nature and are punishable. A true Sovereign does not want to go to jail or hurt anyone. They just want to live their life without interference from the government or anyone else. What is wrong with live and let live?

    However, by me telling all this information to people, I am undoing everything they have lied and connived to accomplish, so that makes me at least an undesirable but not a terrorist. The FBI calls everyone a Terrorist that works to inform the public of what they are doing. I have to stop doing all this or I may be next on their hit list.

    Just by informing people of the truth, people may stop paying their Income Tax. (That is a definite No No). They may try to break laws to try and sue cops for false arrests or criminal charges. (Another no no). They may succeed in making people do research on find out the truth and refuse to believe the lies of the Governments and their agencies, making it hard for them to go on.

    It's people like Carl McClanahan who just thinks he knows what the laws are because he has been brained washed to believe everything he is told by idiots and news commentaters. It's people like uninformed law enforcement officers that know nothing about common laws and use their color of laws against everyone. It's people like Bill O'Reilly who is so gung-ho for the United States Government that he just thinks, he knows it all and won't listen to anyone with any sense. It's people who are Zombies who don't know anything. They just want to look stupid.

    Now do I want to put my name out there for everyone to look up? I don't think so. However, I would talk the same and say the same to anyone on the street if they asked me.

    The KKK may be in the Sovereignty bracket, but they void out their sovereignty, if they started with any, by doing their destruction. They are giving their consent to appear in court under its jurisdiction. They can and will go to jail or prison.

    A sovereign must govern himself or herself to be good clean honest people. Otherwise he/she may be known as a terrorist or extremist.

    It really doesn't make any difference what anyone thinks about me, its what I can do for myself and my family that matters in the long run.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 7:18 PM
  • Cruden v Neale is a North Carolina case not SCOTUS.

    Dred Scott does not contain the "quote" you posted.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 7:25 PM
  • Carl....Carl....where art thou Carl...

    Sui has beckoned thou..

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 7:37 PM
  • I beckon anyone who can make me see it any differently!

    I am a sovereign according to the Supreme Law of the Land and nothing can change that.

    I am not the only sovereign out there.

    Or at least I hope not.

    Now as far as taking up weapons and going against the government, well that is just plain stupid.

    Our government has weapons that you haven't even dreamed about yet. A super sonic sound weapon by itself could disable a whole army standing up against the U.S..

    We have to learn our rights and use them.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 7:47 PM
  • I might want to add here, that I don't hate nor even dislike Carl McClanahan. I see his photo on his page, but that doesn't mean anything to me, no more than not seeing anyone's photo on their comment. You could say I am a little like Trump, in that if you question me you must do it in a respectful way or I might get the wrong idea. I don't want to scare anyone into commenting, but you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 7:51 PM
  • The Dred Scott "quote", the special do not arrest list are list most of the sovereign citizen movement.

    Someone hears something second hand that sounds titillating, but doesn't know how to research or read/understand law, so they just accept it as truth.

    Some stay on the good side of the law and never learn differently, but sadly some learn a very hard lesson when they try to use what they thought was reality in a real courtroom.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 8:00 PM
  • Wow, phone went wonky.

    ×are like most of the sovereign citizen movement

    -- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 8:01 PM
  • Yes your right, quietmike.

    That is what I try to relay to everyone. You can't take what you hear second hand or even first hand and take it for the truth.

    You have to research it and I can't tell anyone where to go to find out. I is a life long quest.

    It is best to just obey the laws. If you are going to commit crimes, that tells me you will be tried as a non sovereign because you broke the laws somewhere down the line.

    A Sovereign isn't above the LAW, only the color of law, IF, they don't break a contract, injure someone or do property damage, and they protect their rights.

    There is more to living your life in total freedom than meets the eye. If a Sovereign obeys the laws, he/she will never get on a no arrest list, because they never had to protect their rights in court. Many can't protect their rights in court because they don't know how.

    It is not my job or intentions to explain to anyone how they can protect their rights. There are different strokes for different folks. What works for one may not work for another. Remembering, there are two (2) Classes of Citizens. One class doesn't get this option because they are born under its jurisdiction. Nothing can change that, unless, but I would never recommend doing that to anyone. The Police are out there for our protection. Yours and mine.

    What I want to get across is that we the People are the sovereignty, and there is a privileged class of people in this country. People can deny it all they want to, but it doesn't change this fact. We the people would have to change it by demanding our legislators change it.

    However, why should foreigners who come to our country have the same rights as we have? That is why immigrants have civil rights, but not sovereign unalienable rights. They have to pay extra to get those privileges thru Licenses.

    SO why does a Sovereign have to buy a license? because we were never told we didn't have to. It has never been revealed to us.

    It is just a non-stop circle.

    -- Posted by sui on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 9:37 PM
  • So do I have this right sui? You are above the law and don't have to pay taxes, but just to be on the safe side, you pay taxes and follow the law?

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 9:41 PM
  • I believe the issue at hand is to obey the law,know your rights and stay away from trouble.What is troubling are the radical and violent individuals.I have to admit most Americans are clueless to what the law is.Being a manager in bars and restaurants,I always make sure I know the current rules and regulations.I drive inspectors,ABC agents and Jehovah Witnesses to the brink of frustration.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Thu, Aug 11, 2016, at 11:37 PM
  • fair share;

    Again, I said I obey the Law. When you see the word Law by itself, that means common law! I am bound by common law and must obey it.

    The color of law is in violation of the constitution (when applied to me), so I do as I please. I may or may not obey the color of law.

    Myself, I do obey most color of law also, just to prevent any confrontation with the law and the courts.

    Why go to court where it is going to cost you not only money, but time as well?

    How is the color of law hurting me? It isn't most of the time, unless I was to fight it at every corner of my life. It is best to just obey the law.

    For example; I go flying thru a stop sign. If I hit someone, I will go to court and be charged with the crime because I refused to stop.

    I have just violated the LAW by injuring someone and can be tried and charged with the crime and pay the price.

    So just because it was a color of law to stop at a stop sign, it makes good sense to stop and make sure nothing is coming. It's a lot safer and cheaper than going to court.

    I try to govern myself and most of all, use common sense.

    No matter how careful you are, you are going to break a law now and then unintentionally or maybe even intentionally but never get caught. So when I do get stopped, I just look at that as a good average. Unless it is a serve charge, I just pay and go on with my life.

    Just because the laws don't apply to a sovereign, doesn't mean you can't just pay the fine and go on with your life. When you go to court, it is going to cost you more than the crime itself in the long run.

    Do I pay taxes? Yes and no. I pay sales tax when I buy stuff in TN. I buy a lot on ebay where I don't pay taxes unless I buy from a TN seller. I pay taxes on gasoline, registrations and licenses.

    Yes I have licenses. Again, it's cheaper to pay the License tax than go to court in every town you drive thru. Stupid to go thru all that for the sake of a couple dollars. Now if I knew I had a NO ARREST Notice on my background check, no I wouldn't pay the tax.

    Do I pay Federal Income Tax? Am I a Federal Citizen? Do I earn any income from a Trade or Business within the United States (Washington, DC)?

    The IRS is a corporation located in Puerto Rico. That is like France telling you to pay them income taxes. Would You? The constitution says that Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, not some Puerto Rican company. The constitution doesn't say congress has the power to let someone else collect taxes.

    Federal Income Tax is a Voluntary Tax. You have volunteered to pay the taxes so you have to pay UNTIL you "Unvolunteer" to pay taxes.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 9:50 AM
  • I "volunteer" to pay taxes so I won't go to jail. Also because so many people are depending on me (to pay taxes).

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 10:44 AM
  • What do you pay with your income tax? The congress raises the debt ceiling up each year so all the programs can be paid. It doesn't come out of your tax money. Most of your tax money goes in the pockets of the IRS Employees.

    I would safely say that 50% of tax payers get most of their money back when they file, if not all of it and then some, so who is paying what you are told taxes pay for?

    Mexicans come into our country and file taxes. They file taxes under several different names so they can claim unearned income from each name. The IRS does not read all those letters. They just check the math. If there are not mistakes in the math, they pay it no questions asked.

    You volunteered without even knowing it. When you sign a w-4 form, you are volunteering to pay the tax. "A requirement of your employer".

    It is aways best to pay your taxes so you don't have to go to jail or prison. I highly recommend paying than fighting for years with the IRS. They do not obey their own laws, codes, rules and regulations.

    When you pay taxes, you can get some of it back if not all of it by filing in many cases, so it isn't smart to stop paying taxes.

    Plus you are given the false idea that you are paying the way for some homeless person and making their life better. Trust me, their life doesn't get any better just because you pay taxes.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 11:35 AM
  • Wow,if one is not paying taxes,then do they still get the services that taxpayers get?Police assistance, federal aid,social security?

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 2:26 PM
  • Color of law is the authority given to cops, lawyers, judges and others to administer and enforce the law.

    I don't know what you're trying to say when you use that term.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 5:19 PM
  • Trust me... he doesn't either.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 5:54 PM
  • The roughly half that don't pay taxes (income, not sales) get the same services that the other half gets. Sui, since I pay taxes quarterly , I only pay what I owe and get nothing back at the end of the year. For those that get a refund for having overpaid through payroll deduction, I'm sure Uncle Sam appreciates the interest-free loan.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 7:46 PM
  • beau maverick,

    Well, Of Course you do! Those are rights that the government must provide or you can sue them. That would be discriminating against a Sovereign and that is something you would not want to do.

    A lot of people do not pay taxes for one reason or another. Low income, no job, retired, disabled, too young, too old, in the care of someone else and the list goes on. Those benefits are paid out by the government from the Government Budget and have nothing to do with taxes.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 8:36 PM
  • quietmike,

    Congress was given the power to legislate for the 14th amendment citizens who are under the federal government as U.S.Citizens. Art 1, Section 8, clause 17.

    "Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY legislation enacted by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution".

    D.C. Code, Title 11 at p. 13.

    Those laws are the "color of law", because it isn't in harmony with the U.S. Constitution. Any law that isn't in harmony with the constitution is "NULL and VOID". when applied to a sovereign if he/she objects to it in a time and specific manner.

    This would fall under "Proof of Jurisdiction".

    However, it can be applied to federal citizens (14th amendment citizens) who fall under its jurisdiction AND any sovereign who doesn't object to it.

    The State legislators do the same. They can legislate for the 14th amendment citizens without constitutional limitations or restrictions, BECAUSE they have no Sovereign Rights, only Civil Privileges and Immunities.

    For example, if a man who claims his sovereignty, he is not bound by any laws made up by his fellow man. (No man can violate your right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    So the only persons who fall under these laws (the color of law, because they appear to be laws) are federal citizens and people who don't know any better.

    Color of Law

    The appearance of a legal right.

    The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

    Here is a test to see what is the color of law:

    A sovereign has a right to do anything he wants to as long as he does not infringe on other peoples rights, does not injure anyone, does not damage someones property nor breaks his contracts.

    The color of law says you can not jaywalk, you can not drink beer in public, you can not read your bible and preach in public, You can not buy paint for your car because it has toxic fumes, you can buy madle airplane glue unless you are 18 or over, You have to wear a seat beat, you have to wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle, You are driving your car if the keys are in the ignition when it isn't running, etc., etc..

    How do these laws make you injure someone, do damage to them or their property or break a contract.

    These laws actually violate your rights. Unless you do injure or damage, you haven't broken any law. Now when it comes to contracts, that is a different story. You have contracted when you purchased a drivers license, or registration, so motor vehicles can get you in trouble in court. I won't get into that.

    Until you injure some one, do damage or violate a contract you entered into KNOWING Full Well all about the contract, you have not committed a crime. That would make the "color of law" an "Expost Facto Law" prohibited by the constitution(s). [You are being charged with violating a law that hasn't been written yet.] You haven't committed any crime yet if no one is injured. so where is the law that says you can be arrested for not committing that crime? There is no such law so you can not be charged if you know your rights and some law.

    I will finish this comment with;

    USC, Title 18, Section 242; It is a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 10:09 PM
  • fair share;

    Since you pay your taxes every quarter, I am assuming you are talking about Business taxes.

    If you turn to the 1939 Income Tax codes you will read that businesses were the only thing taxed to pay for the running of our nation. No man had to pay taxes, only businesses and only on the profit or gain they had after settling their credits/debits. The IRS could also tax government employees because they received money from the government. (Government employees are persons or corporations also, in legal definition.

    They tried to tax people several times but the congress would not allow them to.

    Even the 16th amendment didn't give congress any new taxing power. The two classes of taxes stayed the same. People were told that congress could tax them from any source what so ever. NOT TRUE, but they didn't explain it to the people.

    The 16th amendment was allowed to stay in because it didn't change the meaning of the tax code OR the U.S. Constitution one bit. Tricky, huh?

    So, what I am saying, is if you are a licensed business, you have to pay a business tax and a property tax on your business property. That is your price for the privilege of doing business in the USA. YOU are one of the many who are suppose to pay the taxes that Obama wants to keep throwing away to other countries.

    I want to thank you for paying your fair share.

    I'm sure uncle Obama appreciates the interest-free loan that congress will have to pay back. Next year it may be higher and going to Aunt Hillary.

    Even though you don't get anything back at the end of the year, I am sure, if you are a business GURU, You have claimed all the deductions and expenses you could come up with to lower your tax bill each quarter. (Like Obama Care)

    I did just the opposite when I was just a young man with a house full of younguns. I didn't take any exemptions, so I could get it back in March or April.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 10:44 PM
  • Oh where oh where has Carl McClanahan gone?

    He posted this blog to humiliate and degrade me before my peers and has left the building.

    Why haven't you commented on the Supreme Court Decisions I brought to the table for you. Don't you have a supreme court ruling, decision, overturned case that you can bring forth to stop me cold in my tracks, or are you beginning to see that the people really are the sovereignty?

    It's all over the world, except in this country. The people can not accept the fact that they just might be the sovereignty over the governments. It's too much for them to swallow.

    -- Posted by sui on Fri, Aug 12, 2016, at 11:07 PM
  • Just to prove my point, with all the talk about this extremist Sovereign Citizen Movement, where are all these sovereign citizens who think they are sovereign? Heck, where are just a couple that want to get in on this blog?

    It looks to me like the FBI has just conjured up a whole lot of nothing. The government is just using hate speech to make the people think that a sovereign should be feared as insane or crazy when it is all right there in black and white for anyone to read and fact check.

    Well, I hope you leave this blog up for a while in case someone has a question or two. I would be happy to answer them, if I can.

    I may look and sound like a wuss, but believe me I have stood up to some pretty scary people in my days. Legally that is. I am not a fighter.

    The trick is to use your common sense. When someone comes at me with codes and regulations, I just laugh at them and make them just as scared or the codes and regulations that could apply to them.

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 12:57 AM
  • Sui, I pay income tax as a self-employed person. I don't have a business license. Since you thanked me, I assume you believe I pay my fair share. The problem with this is no one will ever tell me what it is. The only answer seems to be "more". I suspect the goal is to make it high enough to take away incentive from those of us who still have it. At that point, everyone will do whatever Aunt Killery tells them to in return for whatever she sees fit to give them.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 6:28 AM
  • Sui,

    Color of law means acting in their official capacity. It is not a subset of laws.

    Posession of an unregistered machine gun would fall under your description of laws that aren't natural laws (no one is injured by owning one), yet I'll bet you won't put your theory to the test and allow yourself to be discovered with one.

    As for where the sovereign citizens are, the West Memphis father and son duo tried that route and it didn't work out too well for them.


    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 8:22 AM
  • Sui,

    Which SCOTUS ruling are you referring to?

    Dred Scott does not contain the quote you posted.

    The entire paragraph you posted including that quote was copy and pasted from a Sovereign citizens site.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 8:25 AM
  • Fare Share; we do share our love of the self-employment tax. Hard to believe the intent is not to take away any incentive to work... The only problem is that I enjoy working, and can't figure out what I would do with my time without it.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 12:09 PM
  • You could volunteer for a worthy cause.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 12:37 PM
  • quietmike;

    Which SCOTUS ruling are you referring to?

    Actually it was just a summary I found that would be easier for the readers to understand.

    First let's go to the Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, and look up the words "COLOR", Color of Law" and "Under Color of Law".

    What is COLOR?

    An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which Is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality ; a disguise or pretext. Railroad Co. v. Allfree, 64 Iowa, 500, 20 N. W. 779; Berks County v. Railroad Co., 107 Pa. 102, 31 Atl. 474; Broughton v. Haywood, 01 N. C. 383.

    Law Dictionary: (Black's Law Dictionary)

    What is COLOR OF LAW?

    The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.

    McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 108, 19 Sup. Ct. (H4, 43 L. Ed. 936

    What is Under Color of Law?

    Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of law."

    Atkins v Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186,188

    Law Dictionary: (Black's Law Dictionary)


    This phrase means with the apparent authority of the law but it actually conflicts with the law.

    Law Dictionary: (Black's Law Dictionary)

    The word color mean anything that is in question could be something else but looks like what you are questioning.

    the words color of law is laws that only appear to be legal laws, but actually are not. And the words under color of law is what you described above. Using unlawful laws while dressed up as a cop or person in authority.

    To further explain all this, let me use just one example. If you live in Tennessee you are charged with violating Codes in the UCC or TN Codes Annotated. These are state laws that the state legislature enacted in a codes book.

    Are these legal Laws? Let's take a L@@K!

    The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process..." Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

    How can this be true? If we go to the Supreme court again we will see why!

    "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.

    He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."

    CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

    No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United states or the state courts and any such action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law." State vs. Batson 17 S.E.2d 511. 512,513.

    Now if we go further into the American Jurispudence we can find this:

    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment...In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it...A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

    16 Am Jur 2d § 177, late Am Jur 2d §256

    So now we see that all Codes, Rules and Regulations are for government authorities only! It also says, "All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process..."

    Hummm! So what does the law say about unconstitutional laws? You just read it above: 16 Am Jur 2d § 177, late Am Jur 2d §256

    Now we have a conflict of laws. The Uniform Commercial Code (Color of Law) is the One World Order Law, and the Tennessee Codes Annotated are all the State Codes (Color of Law) that apply in Tennessee that the LEOs use against you as an Officer in uniform or by their state given Authority (under the color of law).

    You can plainly see that Tennessee Codes Annotated ARE the codes for residents living in TN. They are Legal laws for TN residents and persons subject to the laws in TN. Yes, they are legal laws, but when applied to a sovereign, they are the color of law because they are unconstitutional and violate the sovereign's rights, and if a uniformed officer arrests you, he is acting under the color of law and can be prosecuted or sued.

    Here's why!


    Oh Yeah, that crazy "Ignorance of law" law, actually was enacted to Warn LEOs and other people in office that if they violate anyones rights they could wind up paying the price.

    Does everyone see how confusing the laws in the United States and the several states and the Constitution can be?

    Okay Mike, you got me on the unregistered machine gun statement.

    I do have a right to bear arms and there are no constitutionals restrictions on "ARMS", so yes by law I would have a right to own one. It is against the law to shoot one across the highway, but as you say, if no one is injured and no property is damaged, what law did I break? A Federal law applies only in federal territories unless a contrary intent is added to the law that would implement me by name or some other way of ID. (The Law MUST BE definite and Specific or dropped).

    However, I have no use for a Machine gun and if I did, I would have to flont it or brag about it before they could come and take it away. If they came and took it, I could fight it in court and make them return property that was sieged without FIRST giving me due process of the law to determine if they had a right to steal it. THAT IS IF THEY DIDN'T KILL ME IN THE PROCESS! Why would I want to take a chance just to prove what?

    I see a lot of these videos on TV. It all started out a few years as Militias. Then it went from the Militias to the TEA PARTY! Now that made me laugh. The Militias were standing on their constitutional rights, which they didn't know how to claim and broke laws because they got aggravated. The TEA PARTY fell apart because congress wouldn't listen to the people. Oh, those Stuborn Republicans.

    And now, they are introducing these experimenters as Sovereign Citizen Movements. All the Videos that I watch look more like "Black Lives Matter" people who just want to kill cops and break the law. Has nothing to do with being a Sovereign.

    A father and son team who went out looking for trouble and stupidly and hatefully took the lives of two LEOs, don't make up the Sovereign Citizen Movement. They may very well be Sovereign Citizens IN HELL.

    If you think about it, this father and son did the very same thing that ISIS is doing everywhere they go.

    How does that even make anyone want to refer to them as Sovereign Citizens? They were not Sovereign in any way. They were just murderers!

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 4:09 PM
  • Sui, I believe your rhetorical garbage is just that, garbage. You have not and cannot cite a single case where your theories have been successful in a court of law. I have never heard such inane and unsagacious bloviations in my long life. You seem to think if anything is mentioned in a Supreme Court Case it is sacrosanct and inviolate. I hate to tell you that each case is about a specific case and the attending facts that is being heard before them. The only thing that has any precedential value is in their findings as expressed in the conclusion. Your seem to think if a Judge writing the opinion mentions that one morning just as he awoke a thought came to him that was apropos to a case he was considering, that this means any thought anyone has as they first wake up is right up there with all common law and the Bible.

    Obviously you slept through the seminar on obiter dicta or simply dicta in law school. This principal hold that judges' musing and explanations are not ruling principals. Case Law is much like the Bible. You can find dicta that will support or refute any argument. Also, I hate to burst your bubble but precedent is not ruling law. Courts routinely rebut, alter and outright change prior holdings on an almost daily basis.

    This will be my final direct communication with you. I don't debate those who do not have the intelligence and emotional stability nor the courage to walk in the sunshine. If I am wrong I will meet you anywhere in a public place and we will debate the Constitution with no notes, computers or assistance, only a clean copy of the Constitution.

    I suspect you will stay deeply in the woods and not come out and identify yourself. So I can't find you, but I bet Homeland Security and the FBI can.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 4:31 PM
  • After reading about the sovereign citizens movement and what they truly are,I'm 100% behind you Carl.Amazing how some people twist the Constitution around to suit their needs.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 6:59 PM
  • Sui,

    It does appear Mr. Carl has chapped your a**.

    Now go sit down on it and ponder.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 7:28 PM
  • Carl,

    I believe your rhetorical garbage is just that, garbage. Every supreme court decision I post is its very own separate case. How stupid are you to not know a case when you see one. I put the case the decision is from with the courts opinion. I don't think you know how to read a case cite or how to look it up.

    Here are 3 case cites of so called "Sovereigns", or "Constitutionalists", or "Tax Dodgers", how ever you want to think of them. The thing is, they used the Common Law (Case precedences) to win their cases against the IRS.

    USA v. Kuglin, WD Tennessee, #03-CR-201 11, August, 2003http://www.abodia.com/irs/IRS-%20No%20Law%20Exists.htm

    "A not guilty verdict came in the Eastern District of Tennessee in the case of U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long, #CR-1-93-91. The verdict came on October 15th, 1993.


    United States v. Tommy K. Cryer No. 06-50164-01

    Western District of Louisiana Shreveport Division

    I hope you are smart enough to look them up because they are too long to type out.

    These are cases that went into real courts and were won because the IRS isn't obeying the law and the people can see it.

    I have spoken out about the cases that the Supreme Court hears, many times.

    In our country we have two separate governments and two separate classes of people, so we have two sets of laws. Common Law and Statutory Law.

    When the supreme court is called in to rule on a case, the justices have to render a decision according to the case and who and what is involved.

    If the case is a Statutory law case, it can rule without Constitutional considerations, because they were tried on unconstitutional laws.

    When they rule on a case that was determined by Common Law, then their decisions must rule in favor of common law and not that of the lower court.

    So yes, every case is different. Many cases won't be heard by the Supreme Court because they don't have anything new that was brought up in the first trial.

    So all those court decisions that you speak about are usually lower court decision that change because of jurisdiction. Althou Supreme Courts appear to change the original decision, that is not the case. A new case is brought up and the person in the case, doesn't use his rights to defend himself or loses, there is another case that is recorded with the opposite ruling in favor of the state. The State will always bring that case that they won into their courts to defeat all new cases against them.

    If a defendant finds the original case that is a Common Law decision, the court must rule in favor of the defendant over the State if the defendant can bring the court into a common law hearing.

    I never went to law school, that is why my mind isn't all cluttered up with defacto laws. That is what law is all about. The last man presenting a case in their favor is the winner, except when the law is contrary to the constitution.

    The law must be specific and definite to be used in a court against you. If they can't present the written law against you naming you as the person liable, they have to drop the case. So you have to be able to read the law, and understand it, that you are charged with to determine if they have a case against you.

    You have not produced any thing or cases that would make me think you know anything about the law, so why would I want to waste my time talking to you? I have explained how people lose court hearings and why.

    According to your statement about courts routinely rebut, alter and outright change prior holdings on an almost daily basis, would mean that the Justice Department has wasted all that time and money on recording precedences for the past 200+ years if they are no good today. That is just a lie Carl. No lower court decision can overthrow an Article III Court decision. That is basic law. Any law that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is null and void.

    After all this typing on my part not one person seems to know or care about what the Constitution says.

    The Constitution is nothing without the supreme court decisions that interpret it.

    If the Constitution was destroyed tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything because everything is set in LAW! There are too many laws to find them all and change them.

    There is nothing in the Constitution to twist around to suit your needs.

    The Constitution is a contract with the government to protect the rights of the people.

    -- Posted by sui on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 9:23 PM
  • Zzzz..........zzz......zz.....

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Aug 13, 2016, at 10:13 PM
  • "You could volunteer for a worthy cause."


    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 1:07 AM
  • How come I keep hearing circus music when I read all this rhetoric?Fact is,the sovereign citizens movement is a major concern for the FBI.Nothing I read about puts them in a positive light.Personally,I feel they are a group of traitors that commit crimes against the US government and her citizens.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 2:21 AM
  • I agree with you beau. These people you read about or hear about are NOT Sovereign People. If they were sovereign people they would not go out and kill, or harm others.

    These people you hear about are wantabes, but don't govern themselves as sovereign people. They just want to go out and talk about the things the government does against the people and take the lawless in their own hands.

    They wind up dead or in prison.

    Being a sovereign means protecting your own rights and let everyone else deal with their rights, so it seems.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 12:54 PM
  • Seems as though the movement needs to clean up it's backyard.With all things in life,there's always individuals who take it to far.Come November, we are going to see further escalation of public unrest and riots.We can only hope cooler heads will prevail.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 1:30 PM
  • Sui, Dredd Scott does not contain that quote.

    Nor is there a case titled Rodriques v. Ray Donavan.

    You have just copied and pasted misinformation you've read elsewhere.

    As I said at the beginning of the thread the sovereign citizen movement is fantasy with an inability/unwillingness to read and understand the law as written.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 3:07 PM
  • Yes,they do live in a fantasy world much like the democratic party.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 3:12 PM
  • Sui,

    I believe a lot of the circus music Beau is referring to is being played over your loudspeaker.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Sun, Aug 14, 2016, at 5:03 PM
  • Yes, I can feel it coming in the air tonight... Oh Lord!

    The cases are there, you just have to look for them. They are real cases. Also, you have to read the case to find out what it is all about. What I put in quotes, aren't necessarily a quote in the case but a memorandum that helped determined the decision the cases.

    Like I said before, people are brain dead! They can not even understand what I say in the English Language. I state I do not believe the way these SCM idiots and killers do.

    I must admit, that all the laws I have used I have given case name and locations, pages numbers when called for and yet the readers of this blog just can not find them, or make up some answer that isn't backed by any law.

    Since people can not use their common sense to understand anything anyone says, I must back down and forget about helping people understand their rights, before I am accused of trying to instruct idiots into being SCM criminals.

    In the words of the famous Blessed ***...."Poof"

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM
  • Sui,

    Link Dred Scott, or any of the other cases you mentioned. Link the actual case and tell us which paragraph your quotes can be found.

    Betting, just like the do not arrest list, once you try, you'll realize you just fell for more second hand nonsense.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Aug 15, 2016, at 5:45 PM
  • The nonsense unfortunately is being bought by those who can't think for themselves or those who are radical.I wonder how many of those soveriegn citizens are on public assistance or receiving federal benefits? How about those people join the real world and stop living in fantasyland.Oh I'm expecting to hear more circus music.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Mon, Aug 15, 2016, at 5:58 PM
  • To all you non believers;

    I will give everyone reading this just (one). If you want to know more, you will have to find them yourself just as I had to. I posted them.

    "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;" [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370

    To read this quote, go here


    then scroll down to Page 118 U.S. 370

    This is a case about a Chinese laundry owner in CA. The Sheriff, Sheriff Hopkins, had Yick Wo a China man locked up as punishment for not shutting down his laundry that heated the water with a wood stove inside their wooden building. A very interesting case. The supreme Court in hearing the case of violation of the China man's rights, they ruled to have the men Yick Wo & Wo Lee released. Yick Wo was serving 10 days in jail to pay the $10.00 fine at $1.00 per day.

    Here is what the Supreme Court decided:

    Page 118 U. S. 370

    When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

    It plain to see that the Supreme Court ruled that the people are the Sovereignty and then it also stated that the Sovereignty itself is not subject to the law, because it is the author and source of the law. The supreme court said while sovereign powers were delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom all government exists and acts.

    If you read the last part of that paragraph, you read, "For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

    This is the statement referring to; No one has a right to tell you what you can or can not do, because they are holding your rights in their hands so you would not be able to enjoy your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is referred to as Slavery!

    Just this one supreme court case is enough to instruct anyone with any common sense to understand that we the people are the sovereignty and not bound by the laws made up by another man nor legislature, unless they are common laws per the U.S. Constitution.

    Read it, you'll enjoy it.

    -- Posted by sui on Mon, Aug 15, 2016, at 9:19 PM
  • Sigh.

    This case dealt with the inequal application of law. The Sheriff in this case only arrested Chinese who violated the city ordinance and turned a blind eye go others who violated the same law.

    The opinion dealt with the violation of the defendant's 14th amendment equal protection.

    Again, if you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, show us.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 3:29 AM
  • I take it, sovereign citizens don't vote?I'm curious on views about police violence, illegal immigrants, taxes when you purchase something, and racial problems?

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 10:18 AM
  • quietmike,

    You didn't read it. Only the case. After the court there is a summary written to explain what was decided. "Page 118 U.S. 370"

    If you read that, the 2nd sentence tells you that even these 2 14th amendment citizens are not bound by the law because, they are part of the sovereignty which resides with the people and not the government.

    I don't fully understand how that could apply to 14th amendment citizens when they are under the jurisdiction of the governments. But then who am I to question the supreme court?


    You will have to ask a sovereign citizen those questions. I am a sovereign man not a sovereign citizen.

    I hate police violence just as I hate police being shot for no reason. When a police officer commits a crime he/she should be punished more severely just because they should know better. They usually get a paid vacation instead, like expelling a student from school so he can terrorize the streets during school hours and get their parents arrested.

    Illegal immigrants? What is there to question? If they are illegal, they should be arrested and deported and made to enter the U.S. legally. It isn't fair to the immigrants who came here legally who had to wait a long time, studied and worked to become U.S. Citizens.

    Sales tax? It is an excise tax that must be uniform throughout the states. Well, I'm sorry, but it isn't. It isn't even uniform just in the counties, let alone the states.

    The TN State Constitution prohibits the state legislature from taxing only item or group of people and not everyone else.

    Have you seen the Taxes on cigarettes keep going up, yet nothing else goes up, IN VIOLATION OF Our State Constitution. Items made or grown in TN are not taxable in TN, but try to sell something you made without taxing it.

    As a Rest/Bar manager, did you know that people could sue you for charging them the raised prices that are unconstitutional? Of course, your safe for now, because someone would first have to take the State to court and prove it was illegal to raise the price for certain items on certain people but not on everyone.

    That wouldn't be hard to do, just very expensive to where most people couldn't afford to do it unless they just wanted to make a point and could afford to throw away that kind of money.

    Only a lawyer would try that as a class action lawsuit where the lawyers would make the money and not the people.

    Racial problems? Yes, we do have racial problems in America, because the government keeps pushing Racism when there isn't any being displayed. The news media keeps racist and racism going to make the headline news. There will always be racists and racism. As long as blacks are shot by cops or cops shot by blacks there will be racism. As long as the Black Lives Matter keeps going like they are there will be racism. It's all just stupidity. Look at what the blacks do when a black is killed. They loot and burn there own **** town down. How stupid and brain dead is that? They did more damage to their own town and the families of the victims than what was necessary. And I will tell you, I see white people right there in the middle of it all doing the same thing. They seem to come together when it comes to destroying and burning and looting. That looks to me like the blacks and white get along pretty **** good together when left alone.

    -- Posted by sui on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 12:30 PM
  • BLM became necessary because all lives did not matter,namely black ones. Unlike the KKK BLM never killed anyone,burned crosses to intimidate,or violated anyones civil rights.BLM started because police are not held accountable for shooting black unarmed people for minor offenses or no offenses at all. Like one cop in Chicago when by his boss who rode along with him one day asked,Why are you stopping those 2 black men walking along the street when they are not violating any laws? His answer was" I can make something up."

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 2:39 PM
  • The key 2 words for everything happening is NO INDICTMENT.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 2:40 PM
  • Either way the current violence and rioting cannot nor should it be justified. Why destroy the town when it's the police you are mad at?Why do they loot?I'm sorry but there's no excuse for any of it.ALL LIVES MATTER.As the sheriff in Milwaukee said.Fix the ghetto.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 2:49 PM
  • Sui,I don't think that you understand that if the taxes at a rest/bar aren't paid,then the state locks your doors.You cannot sue for the sales tax as I watched a owner lose everything he had.Btw,I listen to threats of lawsuits everyday over the most silly things.My favorite was there is not any gluten free pasta on your menu or the funniest.A law student threatened to sue because his girlfriends drivers license looked fake.What alot of customers fail to realize that you can refuse service to anyone.However, I forgot we live in a nation of cry babies.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 3:06 PM
  • Again, I am amazed that anyone with walking around sense believes as the most verbose commenter on these blogs does. He cites cases whereby the Courts hold that the people are sovereign. Doesn't anybody notice that not a single time does his sources state any individual person is a sovereign. A government that is constituted of the people, by the people and for the people is called a Republican Democracy and the people rule themselves, ergo, the people are sovereign not any individual person.

    Every case where sovereign citizen ideology is plead, loses. Nowhere in the legal literature is such held to be so. No one has ever successfully won on such a legal theory. Note there is not a single Supreme Court case considering this issue. This is due to lower courts unanimously ruling that such jurisdictional arguments are frivolous. Note the US Courts of Appeal have to consider cases that are sent up, but the Supreme Court has the option to hear or not. Refusing to hear a case has the effect of upholding the Court of Appeals holding. The 5th and 14th Amendments due process clauses have long held that under the equal protection theory, the government cannot treat one group of people in a desirable manner to the detriment of those not in the group. This is the underpinning principle of all civil rights legislation.

    Here is a recent case that spells out the courts position in general:

    US v. Benabe, 654 F. 3d 753 Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011

    Our intention is not to quash the presentation of creative legal arguments or novel legal theories asserted in good faith. But the arguments raised by these defendants were not in good faith. We have repeatedly rejected their theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk. See United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (rejecting the "shop worn" argument that a defendant is a sovereign and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-01 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir.1990) (describing defendant's proposed "sovereign citizen" defense as having "no conceivable validity in American law"); United States v. Phillips, 326 Fed. Appx. 400 (7th Cir.2009) (dismissing jurisdiction arguments as frivolous because federal courts have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over defendants brought before them on federal indictments alleging violations of federal law). Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a "sovereign citizen," a "secured-party creditor," or a "flesh-and-blood human being," that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented. These defendants raised their immunity arguments with the trial court, which properly dismissed them. But for these defendants, once was not enough. Rather than acknowledging the court's ruling (and, if they wished, saving their arguments for appeal), these defendants continued to interrupt the proceedings in a campaign to obstruct the trial. In doing so, they crossed the line, entering the territory of abuse of the judicial process. Judge Castillo did not err in acting on his valid concern that Delatorre and Benabe would continue on their campaign of confusion and obstruction in the presence of the jury at the risk of prejudicing the venire and necessitating a delay of the proceedings.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 3:45 PM
  • Folks....this fight ends in the second round by a TKO administered upon Sui (ratchet jaws) by Caaaaaaarlllll (crybaby) McClanahaaaaaaaaan.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 6:15 PM
  • We now take a commercial break to recognize our sponsors and will have comments from ratchet jaws Sui after they revive him.

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 6:17 PM
  • Sui,

    I've read the actual case. I don't rely on the ramblings of anti-goverernment websites.

    I worked the better part of two decades dealing with law, so I have actual experience reading and understanding not only code, but also court decisions.

    I see you've chosen not to accept the challenge to cite the actual Dred Scott case showing your "quote".

    You've also given myriad reasons why you won't demonstrate your "rights" as a sovereign to ignore certain laws.

    Any cop, lawyer, or judge will laugh in your face if you tried to assert sovereign citizen as a defense.

    Carl is right.

    Lots of hapless folks have truly bought into the nonsense and actually tried it in court and it has NEVER worked.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 6:47 PM
  • It doesn't work in court and is like playing with a rattlesnake.Sooner or later you will get bit.SUI,however I do agree that law enforcement should be punished severely for breaking the law.Also I feel all lives matter.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Aug 17, 2016, at 12:17 AM
  • If all lives matter,why does police taser a white male who stabbed 2 people to death and was eating the mans face when police arrived and shoot and kill an unarmed black man for a traffic stop or stealing cigars?I'm just saying.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Aug 17, 2016, at 8:37 PM
  • I question the behavior of most cops as I've experienced unprofessional behavior.Just because I work in a bar doesn't mean I am running drugs,under the influence, stealing or my favorite line yet.All of you bar workers are on Crack.So far,I've gotten 3 cops in trouble,2 fired and one I'm letting get himself so deep in trouble that he'll never get out of it.That one works in this area.I also see the othere side of the equation, don't break the law and you won't have trouble.It's a terrible mess that I don't see going away anytime soon.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Thu, Aug 18, 2016, at 10:44 AM
  • Attention please folks.... we need any available paramedic to the the extreme left radical corner of the ring to aid in the assisatance of the downed contendor Sui "ratchet jaws".

    Again....any paramedic in the building to the Sui corner....

    -- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Fri, Aug 19, 2016, at 8:00 PM
  • beau maverick,

    You are right about playing with a rattlesnake! That is why I say what I do.

    I do not play with the rattlesnakes. I never tell the lower courts that I am a Sovereign Citizen. To do this is stupid and gets you in jail quicker.

    First the court is a lower court that does not hear cases in Common Law. so when you go into a lower court you are going to get bit by the rattlesnake.

    So how does a sovereign man do it? He doesn't do anything to have to go to trial for in the lower courts.

    The majority of the people who go to court are found guilty. They then have to appeal the decision of the court in a system which is against them.

    Doesn't matter if it is a Sovereign Citizen, or your neighbor charged with running a stop sign. The court has jurisdiction over you and you are going to jail or be fined.

    As the owner of a rest/bar, you MUST be licensed to sell alcohol and cigarettes by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency. Your tax is paid with stamps. You better have those stamps on your products or you get shut down.

    Income tax isn't paid by stamps, so the income tax is paid from income or profit. Income tax is Title 26 Tax. Alcohol, Tobacco, fire arms and explosives are Title 27 Tax. 2 different taxes altogether. One is a mandatory Tax, the other a voluntary Tax.

    -- Posted by sui on Sun, Aug 21, 2016, at 5:59 PM
  • quietmike,

    I have read several accounts of the Dred Scott case and found them to be very interesting, yet boring as hell. Very informative yet simple. Simple and yet very confusing. It was very RACIST yet legally inspiring. The opinion of Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY, included several other cases in determining this case.

    In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court faced the divisive issue of SLAVERY. Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY, a former slaveholder, authored the Court's opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution permitted the unrestricted ownership of black slaves by white U.S. citizens. In a stunning 7--2 decision, the Court declared that slaves and emancipated blacks could not be full U.S. citizens. Any attempt by Congress to limit the spread of slavery in U.S. territories was held to be a direct violation of slave owners' due process rights.

    Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY, spent more time protecting the rights of the white slave owners than freeing Dred Scott. He brought up the laws that stated that the white man was sovereign, not only in the state that he was born in, but in all the colonies (states) that he visited or lived in. The white man was a United States Citizen.

    U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.

    He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."

    CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

    Now you have to take your mind back to the time of the trial. The U.S. Constitution had been created for several years (a half of a century or more) by this time. The slaves were not freed at this time and had no rights. The black negro was considered an item you bought and sold, Property or merchandise. As an item that could be bought and sold, it had NO RIGHTS.

    At that specific time some of the southern state freed the slaves but not the northern states. Many of the negros in the southern states were given State privileges and immunities but not complete sovereignty as the white man.

    This is where Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY laid the law down. Dred Scott was one of these freed slaves. Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY insisted that a freed slave did not have any standing in court because he did not have the same sovereignty as the white man did, because they were items to be bought and sold. Therefore they could not have rights. He used the constitution to back up what he said by explaining the framers of the constitution never had any intentions of making the negros free. He used several examples, but that isn't important here.

    What Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY did do, is to explain that a slave who was freed by the State in which he lived, DID NOT make him a Free man in any other state he traveled in. Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY stated that if a slave did have rights in any state he traveled in, the slave would have the same sovereign rights as the white man, which he said could not have because the slave is "property" that is bought and sold and "Property" had no rights. Good argument!

    U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Thinking back now, the 14th amendment was not added at this time to the U.S. Constitution giving the negro slaves any freedom, privileges and immunities. The laws back then stated that the PEOPLE were the Sovereignty, just as it applies today,

    The People were the White men who were counted by the states to serve in the Militias. The black slaves were not counted with the People in the states. Another reason why the blacks could not have the same sovereignty as the white man.

    Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY spoke of the "PEOPLE" back then as being European "White People".

    Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY stated several laws declaring the white people as the sovereignty and not bound by any laws written by man or institutions created by men. That was the law back then just as it is today.

    U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2; The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    Anyone with any legal knowledge about them can plainly see that Congress only had the power to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property "Belonging to the United States, or any particular State.

    Show me where it says that congress has the power to make any codes, rules or regulations that would apply to the PEOPLE who are the Sovereignty? Congress only has the power to make these in U.S. Government Territories that it has complete legislative power over.

    The Dred Scott v Standford case was overturned by the 14th amendment.

    -- Posted by sui on Tue, Aug 23, 2016, at 2:36 PM
  • No link showing that quote, just more excess verbosity to disguise that fact.

    As far as your previous post, once again you show your complete lack of experience in the legal system.

    "Lower courts, such as general sessions, handle all cases initially, unless the case is directly presented to the grand jury. General sessions also routinely handles cases of "common law" such as punching someone in the nose (simple assault).

    "Lower courts" follow the exact same laws as all the other courts, so if your sovereign citizen bunk had any merit at all, it would work in any courtroom.

    It's become increasingly obvious that you are just regurgitating what you've read on some looney anti-government websutes or books.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Aug 24, 2016, at 4:35 AM
  • Actually in the bar,the invoices and sales of said items are what is taxed,which is why giving free liquor is not allowed.I believe that the current rate is 27%.That 3 dollar beer has a 81 cent tax.Again,you have missed the point on how liquor is taxed. Tennessee has one of the worst tax systems that actually keeps companies from shipping their product in.Its sad when a bottle of Jack Daniels is cheaper in Kentucky than the state it's made in.Also I will never buy any Jack Daniels products ever again after their stance on the building change at Vanderbilt. History is history, you cannot change it nor erase it.Even though many of our misguided citizens want to.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Aug 24, 2016, at 11:55 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: