Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You guys are getting some attention;
Sovereign Citizens
A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement
By the FBI’s Counterterrorism Analysis Section
FBI ? Sovereign Citizens
Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons.
While the philosophies and conspiracy theories can vary from person to person, their core beliefs are the same: The government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations.1
WTF is a treasoness?
WTF is a treasoness?
It's like a lioness, only treasier.
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law. The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged--not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the U.C.C. 1-207. UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes--in any way, shape or manner--under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing -without prejudice UCC 1-207' on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone.... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use -without prejudice' UCC 1-207 in connection with your signature, you are saying: -I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.' What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes--you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government--federal, state and local. If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103--the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English Law Books themselves!
WTF is a treasoness?
It's like a lioness, only treasier.
Time to learn some law from the Commercial Law Code!.... <snip>
:::::whooooosshhhh:::: 
The Swift doctrine
Until 1938, federal courts in America followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of Swift v. Tyson.[1] In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law.
The reasoning behind the decision in Swift v. Tyson was that the federal courts would craft a superior common law, and the states would choose to adopt it. This hope was not fulfilled, however, as the principles of various states' common law continued to dramatically diverge. Some litigants began to abuse the availability of the federal courts for the specific purpose of having cases decided under the federal common law principles.
The Erie doctrine
In 1938, the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.[2] Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the Erie Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", with the operative word being "general."
The Erie decision did not put an end to other types of federal common law. Several areas of federal common law remain, in two basic categories: areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law, and areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.[3]
The U.S. Congress has given courts power to formulate common law rules in areas such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, interstate commerce, and civil rights. Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.
Furthermore, in the 1943 case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States,[4] the Court recognized that federal courts could still create federal common law, albeit in limited circumstances where federal or Constitutional interests were at stake, Congress had inadequately addressed the situation sub judice, and the application of individual state laws in various jurisdictions would create unacceptable levels of diversity or uncertainty. When fashioning new federal common law, the Court may either adopt a reasonable state law, look to its own precedent, or create new law.
Congressional repeal of federal common law
Federal common law is valid only to the extent that Congress has not repealed the common law. The Supreme Court has explained that, "when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision resting on federal common law, the need for such an unusual exercise of law-making by federal courts disappears."[5]
During the era when the Constitution was written, it was understood that common law was alterable by legislatures. For example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist that the New York Constitution made the common law subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same."[6] Thus, even when a federal court has authority to make common law, that law is subject to alteration by Congress. This principle finds expression in the first sentence of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Not by logic, not by some supreme being, not by some mythical natural rights, all law is based on and supported by VIOLENCE.
Not by logic, not by some supreme being, not by some mythical natural rights, all law is based on and supported by VIOLENCE.
Just so.
And 2nAmendment's belief about maritime law, even if so, means nothing.
Not by logic, not by some supreme being, not by some mythical natural rights, all law is based on and supported by VIOLENCE.
Just so.
And 2nAmendment's belief about maritime law, even if so, means nothing.
Are Federal Reserve Notes the property of the Federal Reserve? Yes
Is the Federal Reserve a foreign corporation? Yes!
Is using a Federal Reserve Note a DISCHARGE OF DEBT? Yes!
Whose DEBT? The DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES? Yes!
Whom is the Creditor, is it the Federal Reserve? Yes!
Does that mean that a Federal Reserve Note carries a hidden lien (maritime hypothecation) in all contracts which use Federal Reserve Notes? Yes!
Are contracts involving Foreign Corporations considered Maritime/Admiralty Jurisdiction? Yes!
Does the IRS operate under Maritime Jurisdiction? yes!
Just so.
And 2nAmendment's belief about maritime law, even if so, means nothing.
Are Federal Reserve Notes the property of the Federal Reserve? Yes
Is the Federal Reserve a foreign corporation? Yes!
Is using a Federal Reserve Note a DISCHARGE OF DEBT? Yes!
Whose DEBT? The DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES? Yes!
Whom is the Creditor, is it the Federal Reserve? Yes!
Does that mean that a Federal Reserve Note carries a hidden lien (maritime hypothecation) in all contracts which use Federal Reserve Notes? Yes!
Are contracts involving Foreign Corporations considered Maritime/Admiralty Jurisdiction? Yes!
Does the IRS operate under Maritime Jurisdiction? yes!
All of which means nothing.
Are Federal Reserve Notes the property of the Federal Reserve? Yes
Is the Federal Reserve a foreign corporation? Yes!
Is using a Federal Reserve Note a DISCHARGE OF DEBT? Yes!
Whose DEBT? The DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES? Yes!
Whom is the Creditor, is it the Federal Reserve? Yes!
Does that mean that a Federal Reserve Note carries a hidden lien (maritime hypothecation) in all contracts which use Federal Reserve Notes? Yes!
Are contracts involving Foreign Corporations considered Maritime/Admiralty Jurisdiction? Yes!
Does the IRS operate under Maritime Jurisdiction? yes!
All of which means nothing.
So then, you accept that the above facts are correct, regardless of their value to you?
Is using a Federal Reserve Note a DISCHARGE OF DEBT? Yes!
Does that mean that a Federal Reserve Note carries a hidden lien? Yes!
Whom is the Creditor, is it the Federal Reserve? Yes!
Is the Federal Reserve a foreign corporation? Yes!
Are contracts involving Foreign Corporations considered Maritime/Admiralty Jurisdiction? Yes!
Therefore does the Federal Reserve (private corporation) have recourse through the District Courts (Admiralty Courts) to acquire possession of any piece of property that carries a Maritime Hypothecation (hidden lien)? Yes! This is done through the IRS!
When any contract is transacted via a Federal Reserve Note, is the primary party the Federal Reserve? Yes!
The sovereign citizen movement claims that a person has the right under common law (or at least their bizarre sham definition thereof) to declare him/herself as essentially a nation unto themselves, and therefore may not be subject to the law of the land where they live. It is closely associated, among other things, with such extreme right wing causes as the tax protester movement and the militia movement in the United States. The term freeman on the land is a pseudolegal term assumed as a title by some would-be sovereigns, deriving from a complex and not-easily-explained conspiracy theory involving admiralty law and the Uniform Commercial Code.
Freemen hold that we are all subject to a massive international legal conspiracy perpetrated for the profit of the elites, but you can hack the system if you just use the right form of words.[3] They believe only in their version of natural law, which they call "common law." In practical terms, they believe this means they do not have to pay taxes, debts, mortgages, etc. because we were all deceived and if you say the right form of words this fact will be accepted.
Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction using the concept of "lawful rebellion": that all statute law is contractual and therefore only applicable if an individual consents to it. They assert that what everyone else regards as "the law" doesn't apply to them as they have not consented to a contract with the state,[4] even going so far as to claim they have a lawful right to refuse arrest if they do not consent. They insist that the government is a corporation, are obsessed with maritime law, and call themselves things like "John of the family Smith." Essentially, they're hilarious and somewhat less threatening sovereign citizens.
No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in court; some have even explicitly ruled that the term "freeman on the land" has no legal significance when the argument is raised.[5] Actually using the arguments gets people into worse trouble, including fines, asset seizures, contempt convictions and criminal records. However, this doesn't stop freemen from claiming that it works.
