-17 votes

The Great Sovereign Challenge

To all who claim they legally travel with no license, discharge debts with "straw man" or "accepted for value" because they are sovereigns, here's your chance.

You get to publically show what a studmuffin (or muffinette) you happen to be. If you win, I will publicly agree that the straw man exists and that you are now a sovereign, plus I will do your laundry and wash your car for a year.

But: you have to have proof. A traffic ticket dismissed because the judge was too busy, or the cop didn't show, won't suffice. So you have to show that you did some sovereign mumbo jumbo, and that a court somewhere ruled, in writing, that not only did you prevail but you prevailed because of your mumbo jumbo. It has to be an authentic writing, from a court, that is a final result. Not overturned later, not a tentative ruling, a for reals final result in your favor because you have successfully "escaped the matrix" or whatever cornball phrase you want to use!

If you can do that, then you will be the victor.

And one more thing - I am the Judge of this competition. I make the rules and the rulings. And I can hold you in contempt of thread.

Competitors have one day to make their submissions from the date of thread creation. Submissions can be in .pdf form linked from this forum. All submissions must be certified and from a real Court of a State or Federal US jurisdiction. All submissions must be verifiable - i.e., one can go to Court and get a copy that is identical, if need be. All costs for obtaining copies and verification are the responsibility of the contestant, and in no way the responsibility of the boneless chicken rancher and certainly not of his chickens. These rules are to prevent fraud on the chicken rancher. Go ye.

Go now and Show us how it's done!


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


"I am phreedom. I appear to be speaking english but really am fluent in gibberish, which explains why none of the things I say make any sense. Oh, and I am the smartest human in the history of the earth, which I helped create while smoking woodrose seeds. Just ask me, I'll tell you. Not only that, but I am really, really courageous, just ask me. I'm dying to tell you. Maybe it will get me laid."

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Sorry Chicken head

I am already married and I don't screw chickens. LOL

By the way one doesn't smoke the Hawaiian woodrose seeds you eat them.


The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

can't wait for the divorce

will you try to file a common law divorce at the local Denny's? Or will you claim she only married your corporate persona? The comedic variations are endless!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

That is all straight out

of Black's Law dictionary and government style manuals. Of course it's hard to read because 95% of the text is straight out of stupid doublespeak legal dictionaries. I really love how quoting straight out of Black's Law Dictionary (which you suggested and recommended) using exact text citing all sources fails to prove anything. Are you a complete idiot or what? The actual text of a dictionary you want to use fails to prove anything?

Entity with an arbitrary bundle of rights deemed by men/Person = Man + Arbitrary Title/Status/Condition/Standing (ie. Capacity).

It's right there in Black's dictionary, a person is a man considered according to his rank in society. Straight out of the dam thing and that fails to prove? The only thing unproven is that your response has any sign of intelligence.

Atoms are building blocks of nature and men or Adam's as they are called using a Biblical reference are building blocks of society.

When an atom takes on a positive or negative charge it performs work governed by rules applicable to its charge. When a man takes on a capacity using a title, such as President/CEO/General/Private/Officer/Judge/Etc. his person performs work governed by rules applicable that capacity. Do you even call yourself an educated entity? This is pretty basic stuff here.

To further illustrate I am not having a conversation with intelligent life I will use your Assos computer remark:

Word Processor = Assos computer + Microsoft Office
Gaming Platform = Assos computer + Starcraft
Weapon = Assos computer + C4 Explosives

Microsoft Office, Starcraft, and explosives are all potential capacities of the Assos computer and when any one of them is in use it is governed by the rules applicable to each capacity which then determines whether it is functioning as a word processor, gaming platform, or weapon each thing possessing a bundle of rights. A word processor may possess the right to produce a document. A gaming platform may possess the right to entertain. A weapon may possess the right to injure. This is exactly how the domain of persons work.

Person = Man + Title of Judge
Person = Man + Title of General
Person = Man + Title of President
Person = Man + Title of Citizen

The persons illustrated above each possess their own bundle of rights and/or privileges determined by the title used or employed by a man.

When you go to school get back to me ... I already stated I do not have the patience for useful idiots who would try to blow smoke up my ass.


If I could give more props I would. Here's another one for you

WMD infobomb = His American Majesty + Law


Rock on!

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

So this thread was posted why?

'I'm not out seeking answers. I know the answers. I know the whole sov cit thing is bunk because I practice law and I have personally researched and debunked these things.

I get tired of people posting their fraud about this stuff.

So, I created a thread to illustrate that no one can prove it works. So far, no one can."

Can you please show how you have personally debunked these things?

You practice law? What does practice entail?

If you get tired of people posting their fraud about this stuff why create a thread in order to invoke more "fraud about this stuff"?

The fraud was induced when credit was extended, because credit is not money and FRN's are not money, they are Notes!

Please look up and tell me how "money" is defined in the CFR and post it here, rather public money.

Practicing law is required of us all in order to defend the rights we have or have assumed by entering into contracts. Just because you practice law doesn't mean that your practice of law is superior to another person's practice of law, does it? I know you didn't say this, but it feels as if you're implying it.

Please tell us all why you post a thread when you already know that the answers you receive will be bunk or faultered?

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

I'll reply to the apples but not the oranges

This is not a thread about what constitutes money or lawful money. If you'd like a legal opinion on it, please p.m. and I can arrange for you to send me retainer funds for my research.

As to why I posted the thread, that has already been answered. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. It was a sort of rhetorical question in a way - to get people to think. There are those - yourself included perhaps, that still think the whole straw man thing is legit even though no one here posted any proof that it has ever worked. The point is to make a point. Now one can say that making points is wasteful, time consuming, annoying, frivolous, etc. And they may be right. If so, what are we all here for?

I realize everyone thinks that because they read English they are a lawyer. If our legal system were simple enough and clear enough - which would inarguably good things - that would be true. But in the real world, it isn't.

I'm not going to indulge anyone's fantasies that they can represent themselves in court or otherwise practice law effectively on their own behalf if they have no legal education. I frankly wish it were different but the way it is now, at least in my state, other big or litigious states, and federally (which is my experience) is that one can't succeed doing so. Not only is there the competence issue (as to substantive law, procedure, and how to research) but there is the emotional element (which any lawyer who has tried to represent himself in court well knows). Again, not what you want to hear, but it is reality.

Indeed, there are so many would-be amateur lawyers out there that my clients usually have two or three giving them bad advice on the side. In a typical lawsuit, it takes a few months for them to realize that the crap they get from their buddies, the internet, and other wannabes just flat doesn't work, and then they realize that "oh my gosh I really need to listen to my lawyer." In court I see judges talk themselves blue in the face hoping that litigants will get lawyers, not because there's anything in it for the judge, but becasue the litigant has no chance without one.

I have a friend who thinks "we are all lawyers" and tells me his supposed legal theories. For all I know you are him. If he ever tried that stuff in court, he'd probably end up fined, in jail, and definitely the loser.

if it were that way, you would be able to read and understand the significance of the caselaw that I cited, which includes dozens of cases which hold that the sovereign citizen stuff is just pure unadulterated bunk

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I will have a debate with you

because the nonsense that law is sovereign because it justly applies to anyone and everyone at any time for any reason is the only thing that is bunk.

Furthermore the only people who use the phrase sovereign citizen are from the Small Penis Lobbying Center, FBI, or useful idiots. Intelligent people understand the phrase sovereign citizen is a contradiction in terms and concepts. One can not be simultaneously sovereign and subject.

The truth is statutes and codes are not sovereign because they are an invention of man. They are abstracts which do not exist in nature but only in the minds of men. Power can be applied anywhere at anytime and law is no exception. The question is whether it is just power. The great truth and principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is the notion of just power and that just power derives from consent.

The truth is that if application of law does not derive from consent it is not just. Even the Holy Bible enshrines this exact same principle in both the old and new testaments. In the old testament did all of the decrees by the Lord to Hebrews apply to gentiles? No! In the new testament are people saved through Jesus by defacto without their consent? No!

What I tire of are assholes who would assert statutes or code apply to anyone or everyone at any time for any reason without any explanation. It is a position that is not supported even by so called case law they are so fond of citing. If codes or statutes applied universally to all entities at any time for any reason then jurisdiction would not be a concept that is limited or restrained in any way.

Yes, there are plenty of assholes who think they can debunk some stupid unintelligent phrase such as sovereign citizen but none of them can explain who or what statues or codes apply to and why.

well most of us

got that explanation in civics class in High School. Some of us even graduated. There should be a good GED program near you!

But I am particularly entertained that you have now, officially, adopted this as a part of your religion.

Hey man, Jehovah got pretty darned dictatorial when he wanted. And Jesus was the "King of the Jews".

ROFL. now back to your farcical aquatic ceremony

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Oh since this was something taught in high school civics

then it should be absolutely no problem for you to explain who or what statues and codes apply to and why in easy, simple to understand terms.

Obviously you can't because your full of shit and I just don't have the patience for and can't stand stupid lying asshole types who would try to blow smoke up my ass.

you have to look at the code or statute

without reference to a statute or code that is impossible. However, the fraudulent idea that statutes and codes don;t apply or are optional, is what I assume you are on about. That is nonsense.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

This reply is so comical ....

because there is an admission one must look at a specific code or statute to determine who or what it applies to and why. Do you know what that means? That means it doesn't apply to anyone or everyone at anytime but then you further state "the fraudulent idea that statutes and codes don't apply or are optional." Do you know what is so damn comical about it? By your own admission a statute or code does not apply to some people or things at some times.

Do you know what "you have to look at the code or statute" means? It means a code or statute applies to a specific activity in a specific jurisdiction. One must then ask what constitutes an activity and what constitutes a jurisdiction?

In another thread you made a big deal about the notion law applies to people who elect their representatives, yet now you are saying something completely different in that one must look at a specific code or statute. You are a joke. These things are not complicated but people such as yourself who use doublespeak can't explain the simple truth. A code or statute justly applies to one who chooses to be governed by it in order to receive a gain or benefit while engaging in a specific activity.

You;re really dense

of course a statute or ordinance doesn't apply to "everyone." Just not in the way you claim.

First of all, a California statute will only apply with the jurisdiction of California. A New Jersey statute within the jurisdiction of New Jersey. Get it?

And then there are codes or statutes that state when they apply. There may be codes that govern the conduct of lawyers or dentists. If one is a CPA the laws applying to dentists aren't going to be of much use. Get it now? How about now?

None of that changes the fact that our representatives, elected or appointed, draft them and enact them according to whatever procedure of whatever state, and that the laws apply in that jurisdiction. In a sense, they do apply to "everybody" because if "everybody" became a dentist then laws governing dentistry would apply to "everybody" but hopefully you aren't so dense that this throws you for another loop.

Again, there are high school level civics programs that cover this stuff. I'm not kidding, that is the level of knowledge that you are failing at.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

So ...

what constitutes:

A jurisdiction?

A state?

A driver?

A vehicle?

A motor vehicle?

I find it extremely comical that

1. Mr. Boneless has yet to provide any meaning or definition to the questions above, and

2. Merely posing legitimate questions which continue to go unanswered have been down voted.

I have a question that you may be able to answer, or at least

Give a view point on as you work in the courts. Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Do the courts ever recognize anything that conflicts with the Constitution as repugnant, or is that a dead issue as they primarily appear to be ran for profit, not for real justice.


Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

That is a different subject

but if you post it in a different thread, I'll respond this evening!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


I'm havin' a bad week.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Is it because nobody likes you?

Or because we are all individuals who like to protest in a way that doesn't fit your idea of what's right?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

why do you have such an odd

why do you have such an odd desire to seek approval from the criminal class?

The DP is great because it seeks to find truth through reason and logic, not some random illegitimate organization's, which has a tendency toward tyranny, decree.

But your silliness does provide a nice comedic break, so thanks.

"random illegitimate organization"

oh you mean like sovereign citizen groups, or "law schools" taught by some dude with no legal education, or are you just referring to subgroups of the libertarian movement? And after all, if your whole idea is that no one should tell you that a person is or isn't qualified to practice a profession, then how are you qualified to say that anyone else is or isn't "legitimate?" This isn't libertarianism you're espousing but "me-ism": It is not your way, and you want it more your way. And damn those people who you disagree with. Most people realize the limitations of this at some point when they are quite young and playing in a sandbox.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein




And please stop bumping this troll...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Thanks for the bump

and you still haven't provided proof. Your link contains no proof and is not in the proper form. And it is vague, general, bullcrap the likes of which are spread all over this site. No ticky, no laundry. I count this as a loss for you, and a bad one. And, it is untimely. DENIED.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Why don't you

Why don't you just save everyone the trouble, and show them the case law that says they CAN'T do it?

You've said you practice law, and have studied this issue.

Here ya go! This should keep you busy for a few hours

I did that in this very thread. But there is a whole BUTTLOAD of resources out there.

There is a site idiotlegalarguments...

Here's a link to the specific section. You'll note not one, not a few, but a whole bunch of cases which say that very thing. And that list grows by the day. http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss2.asp#sovereign

Check out this forum as well. A lot of the members are attorneys or even tax attorneys who oppose the IRS in tax court: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=37&sid=3f757...

You'll note that the particular forum is entitled "sovereign citizen and redemption scams" because at the root of all of these theories is some guru selling nonsense to the hopeful.

I personally have knowledge of about half a dozen cases, state and federal, from the past year where litigants tried this kind of stuff, and lost.

A lot of times they'd show up, in pro per, with their "paralegal" or "advisor" in tow in court. They'd lose. They'd get pissed. Sometimes the court would give them a chance to amend their pleadings (the judge doesn't want to get overturned for not giving them leave to amend...so instead of being railroaded the courts actually bend over for these people because the court knows absolutely that the fake sovereigns will lose and wants to be sure the court is safe from being overturned on an appeal) and they would immediately be proclaiming that they had a victory even though the judge told them they lost and needed to revise their pleadings and get rid of the nonsense. It gets quite comical.

They generally make fools of themselves, and sometimes aren't even aware they are doing it. And there is nothing worse than a fool that thinks he is winning.

What you've asked me to do is quite easy. What I've asked you to do, cite proof that up is down, that black is white, is impossible. Get it? How bout now?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Damn Boneless, you are a lazy lawyer ...

... but at least, you are a good example of why nobody should ever hire a lawyer -- most of them are lazy as hell.

BTW, the reason I am being offensive is because you are a troll, fishing for a fight but not offering anything of substance to back up your own position.

Let's take a look at what you posted here. First, you gave two links. Both of those links are to sources that lack any reasonable credibility. The Anti-Defamation League is a racist organization that is not interested in substantive debate. They are only interested in censorship.

Likewise, Quatloos is run by Jay Adkisson, a lawyer who will never address anything of substance related to these particular issues. He and his gang engage only in logical fallacies, not substantive debate.

Now then, let's look at that first page anyway, despite the fact that the ADL is dishonest --

The first several cases are all UNPUBLISHED cases. This is EXACTLY what you will find for any pro-sovereign stuff. The government will not allow a losing trial court case to be published. People like you will then claim, "if it ain't published, it doesn't count."

So, why are you doing the same damn thing? You are providing the very same type of cases to "prove" your point. No dice. No soup for you.

Now, I did take a look at one of those first few cases that was a published case. I looked up Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028.

Guess what? It does NOT prove your case, and further shows that ADL and their lawyers are a bunch of lazy bozos, too. They couldn't even be bothered to look it up??? WTF?

This case was REMANDED from the federal court back to the state (county) court because the federal court HAD NO JURISDICTION:

"The Court remands this action to the District Court of Woodward County, Oklahoma for numerous reasons, including ... no jurisdiction exists, Mr. Devous having pled no facts that satisfy the complete diversity or amount in controversy requirements ..."


Stop being so damn lazy, boneless. Don't just cut-and-paste a couple of links of nonsense. If you want to assert your claim is true, then do the RESEARCH and PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IS ON POINT.

This Honorable Supreme Court of the People, in the case of BONELESS vs. SOVEREIGN (like that upper case there, Boneless?) finds for the defense, due to failure of the plaintiff to present any evidence. Summary Judgement.

about that forum

the people there are on the front lines, if you read there long enough you'll see. I have gotten info there that has lead me to case cites that I've used in winning briefs. You might think it has "no substance" but for people actually using the law, it certainly does. Now for people just internetting around and pretending to know things, not so much. You're entitled to your studied opinion. Still waiting on a victory for your side. Right now I've got about 200 of them and you have zero.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

yeah yeah,

but where is the case which says the opposite? Hmmm? Not even unpublished? As is the point of the thread, it doesn't exist. And you know those unpublished decisions, those are cases where people claiming sovereign theories LOST. Get it?

And on Devous - you're just not thinking well or clearly. You seem to think that because the case was remanded to state court that means that a sovereign argument won. It doesn't. As I've pointed out in this thread, courts are quick to say when they don't have jurisdiction. In this case, the Sovrun was using the argument that he was, as a sovrun, not a citizen of the state he was from. It is a particularly retarded form of sov cit legal tactic, where a litigant attempts to remove the case to a court which the litigant believes has no legitimacy, because the litigant knows he or she is toast in state court. Hey, I'm not making it up, it happens, and in fact in this very thread I cite language from ANOTHER case in which the same thing was attempted by a sovrun, unsuccesfully. Maybe you should read through this thread, find that case, read it in its entirety as it more fully than Devous explains this particular strain of the lunacy you so proudly support.

Devous removed the case to Federal Court, for a second time. The basis for the removal was diversity jurisdiction, even though Devous was a citizen of the state it was removed from. This was a case where Devous made the argument that he was a sovereign and therefore should be treated as if he wasn't from the place he was from. Typical sovereign form and labelling over substance type of approach, basically. He lost.

But even if that were incorrect, even the best research sources have errors. I've found errors in legal treatises that are the most prominent, in law review articles from Harvard, and anything below that. Citing to a research source doesn't mean that every last thing contained in it is correct. But when a largely accepted source contains a string of citations that all stand for the same thing, you can pretty much bet your bottom federal reserve note that it is the law. Even if there are a couple of errors on that list.

Again, I know you won't like this explanation, but I play in reality, not in internet fantasy.

And I had already cited actual language from a federal court case in this thread about the issue.

And I had cited to another source of information.

So, in the end, believe what you want, but if you're wrong, be a man and admit it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Oh look..

You edited your post.


I thought it was a little harsh.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein