7 votes

The Greater Sovereign Solution - for all!

This post was prior directed at Boneless Chicken for they thread he/she posted "The Great Sovereign Challenge" - now I direct it to all of you and hope you find some rectification within it.

So first let me say that the challenge presented by your thread appears to have been put forth in order to gloat and presume of others that their efforts in administering the law they may have “practiced” is inferior in some way to your “practice” of law. You state and imply that you have all the answers and that because of your “practice” of law you are entitled to post such a challenge to us all in order to prove your achievement of practice and foreknowledge upon the a stage therefore predetermined. Let me make it clear that I was and am not discouraged by your thread, rather interested all the more as to why you would post such a challenge when you clearly possessed all foreknowledge of the content of the responses invoked. It seems a bit trite to reduce sovereignty to a practical joke, whereby you solicit responses, many quite heartfelt and genuine, in order to induce an atmosphere that is insensible and insensitive to a driving force behind the search for sovereignty: independence.

I am not intending this post to come off as retaliatory, rather look at it as vigilant in the defense of an idea that is very important to many. If you truly weigh victories of law merely by the judgments awarded, then you have unfortunately overlooked a vital aspect of what sovereignty can imply to those you disregard of effort and persistence, ESPECIALLY of efforts in accepting your challenge. As a believer in my own sovereignty I am not so deluded to believe that inquiring for and asking for help or collaboration is comparable to loss of sovereignty, rather a notion that empowers and makes healthy the sovereignty of each individual affected by and from the collaboration and the efforts volunteered therein.

Sovereignty implies self-governance, independence and having supreme power over your affairs as paramount. The sovereign citizen movement isn’t just about the ties that bind us to government and the dependency exacerbated by the degree we are bound, it is about consciously and consistently, when possible, learning to break the dependencies that are negatively affecting one’s ability to become sovereign of mind. I WANT TO BE FREE! I accepted your challenge and was disavowed based on your “practice” and experience of law and for the reason that I wasn’t awarded the judgment by the judiciary presiding over my case. I am not interested in winning for the purpose of winning. I am interested in claiming my supreme power over my own affairs…and I believe I did just that by defending myself against tantamount odds. I did not win the judgment, but then again I wasn’t seeking favor for the purpose of seeking favor, rather I had challenged the conscionability of an unsigned, misrepresentative contract and the solvency and integrity of a corporation that had conspired to strip citizens of their wealth despite usurious and abusive and fraudulent tactics of finance.

I would like to believe that those who are seeking their own sovereignty are seeking it foremost for their hearts and minds and not for the day when they can wave an indignant and childish finger at the convoluted system that awards those with the unbalanced privy of legislating, determining and enforcing thousands of pages of text regulation and law over those who may not even understand that they are not the “person” described in the contract they’ve just signed, or that by signing they are not only subject to laws they may not or cannot fathom, much less that they are subject to those laws as a commercial, legal fiction.

Sometimes the purpose of sovereignty is growth of self, growth of mind and growth of spirit. If you base the sovereign “movement” on the failure of us to stand victorious of your challenge then you have surely missed out on what sovereignty truly means. The most important step is to realize the cage we have created for ourselves…the steps that follow are not outlined, determined or set in stone...we each create our own sovereignty and I wish you well in creating yours.

Peace and Love to all.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

i already told you twice

why i will not help you in this endeavor
i told you why you created this post
and i haven't changed my mind as to my original thought behind it
and i even went so far as to tell why others will not help you
but the question is,did you heed my advice? or doesn't it matter to you?
if it doesn't matter to you,then my original thoughts are correct
just what do you think you have won?
if it was to help others,then you lost,and in a big way
if indeed you think you won,then it goes back to my assertions
about why this post was created in the first place
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

the only way I lose in this endeavor

is if you fail to post up proof! So let's see it mr. friend of a friend who smoked a lot of weed and said that he defeated the statist enemies with his sovereign powers...let's see your proof! What? Got nothing? oh.

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

please answer boneless...

So as a man of law, please tell me what recourse I have as a Defendant when multiple infractions were made by Counsel for Plaintiff under the FDCPA and how those could be brought against Counsel in a civil lawsuit when acting for Plaintiff?

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

you're being too vague

Probably the clearest sign I can give that I am a lawyer is that I am not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, and no other lawyer would either. Similarly, I don't give quickie advice to vagrants at law libraries or in the hallway. Now, if you came to me and really wanted an answer to that, and brought all the relevant information, we might be able to do business. IF you didn't appear to be crazy, were willing pay for it, and were not insisting I go into court acting like a flipping fool high on sov citizen theories gleaned from youtube. So no one can give you advice based on what you are asking and I don't even know what jurisdiction you are in, so I might not be able to anyway.

my advice is to consult your local bar association for a consumer rights attorney and take it from there. If they are not so specialized in your neck of the woods, get a good general practitioner.

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

I already knew the answer...

it was a question for you and you still haven't answered...interesting!

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Yes, you're correct

no sane lawyer would do what might be construed as giving you legal advice, over the internet, in public, with no attorney-client privilege attaching, without having reviewed the necessary information, without having met you, etc. It's not the way quality advice is given. So, yes, you're absolutely right, I have not answered your question.

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

Too vague?

Counsel for Plaintiff = third party.

Plaintiff = the party who brought the lawsuit.

Counsel = debt collector/collection agency.

Then right answer would have been that you cannot bring charges or defenses or infractions against a third party to the lawsuit as they are not the Plaintiff, rather only acting as Counsel for Plaintiff.

It was an honest question - I was hoping you would know that one cannot bring charges against a third party in a lawsuit, rather one cannot hold Counsel liable for infractions to the FDCPA when they are representing Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. The FDCPA would only apply if Counsel was the party actually SUING and named as Plaintiff in the lawsuit itself.

And actually a lawyer did touch it and represented Plaintiff by s&^ting all over the FDCPA to no avail or remedy to me since the sly cheat was only a third party to the lawsuit, even though he was representing the Plaintiff and following their orders. If you were a lawyer, shouldn't you know this?

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

And you haven't posted proof

that you are a lawyer. You say you are, where's the proof?

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

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

Well said

No man or woman may claim ownership over you or your property. Period. We are not slaves. We are not serfs. We are totally and completely free individuals so long as we follow the non-agression principle. We are born free. We should live free. And die free.

________________________________________

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

The Individual is Actually a U.S. citizenship (bank account)

An "individual" is defined as the least divisible part of something, emphasis on thing.
An individual Mc Donald's store is the least divisible unit of Mc Donald's.
An individual within the United States is really just a single bank account at the federal reserve, an individual account.
So the bills or court summons are issued against your bank account "the individual".
The offer to contract comes to the man or woman. So if direct TV wants to sign someone up they send it to one, like this John Jacob Astor. After John signs up for direct tv the bill goes to the individual bank account JOHN J ASTOR.
In the law no one is an individual, one is just one, or someone. The "individual" is just a trust account in the United States banking association.
The U.S. government operating as recovery agent for the Federal Reserve Bank's creditors can do any necessary thing to the individual trust/bank account to pay the Fed's creditors.
So never claim you are a bank account.
I am I, or I am, or I am someone but it is an impossibility for me to be the least divisible part of the Federal Reserve Bank. What is it a blood bank, are they vampires?
I'm a man, not an individual bank account.

Don't use the (communist) public language they indoctrinated one with in the day orphanages.
One must break thy cult conditioning if one wishes to be free.

The Oracle

More gibberish for BC -

So one of the deciding factors in the awarding of the judgment to the Plaintiff in my lawsuit was an Affidavit submitted by Counsel for Plaintiff, which was notarized incorrectly and perjured by the Affiant, as there was no notarial certificate attached or verbiage attached as required under Delaware Notaries Public in order to prove appearance of the Affiant in signing/swearing to the document and contents therein.

I can provide "proof" if you desire. When I called out the falsification and ultimate disqualification of the document/affidavit presented, I was told that the issue was "irrelevant and without merit"...uhmmm, perjury while under oath and purposeful submission/filing of a perjured document is "irrelevant and without merit"?

I provided the relevant sections of the Delaware notaries public as one of my Exhibits in my summary of final submission for the hearing but apparently in the court of law perjured, heresay affidavits suffice as legitimate documentation in order for an award to be granted against the party who calls out the perjury - let me hear you rebut that crime.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Can I Have It?

Are you saying there is an open judgement against your individual?
If so can I have it?
Please?
I'll take that action.

The Oracle

why, got a birdcage?

Going to line it?

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

everyone who loses

a lawsuit has a similar story...judges and arbitrators aren't perfect...but they usually get it right.

There are a lot of possible explanations for what you are saying, and without seeing all of the documentation or knowing anything about the case, it is impossible to be convinced there is anything to your upset.

I'll add that it doesn't help your case but hurts it when you say you paid for 3 hours of time then submitted a 70-80 page brief. Lawyers know you have to get to the point in court...or in arbitration. If you don't make it easy for them to rule in your favor, you might not get that result. Another reason to hire a lawyer, another aspect of skill and judgment in approaching and presenting your case. Food for thought, eh?

From your participation in these sov cit threads I further suspect that your papers were loaded with crap about how the law isn't he law and supposed "proof" that anyone with a legal education knows is meritless. The sad thing with a lot of these folks is that they often have legitimate defenses and partial defenses but don't present them because they're too busy trying to prove the court should follow their own little world of jurisprudence instead of the law which they are required to follow. It NEVER works. Never.

So, I'm thinking that there's about a 90% chance that you got what you deserved, or as the arbitrator put it when you bombed him with 80 pages of off-topic nonlegal gibberish - you were a victim of your own design.

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

Ok...

"I'll add that it doesn't help your case but hurts it when you say you paid for 3 hours of time then submitted a 70-80 page brief. Lawyers know you have to get to the point in court...or in arbitration. If you don't make it easy for them to rule in your favor, you might not get that result."

I never paid for 3 hours of time, rather paid my $250 portion of the $500 for an arbitrator to review the case (this was just the initial cost). If the arbitrator saw it fit to charge more (due to the need for further examination) he would do so (and I was willing to pay if necessary to make my points). I paid the fees required to MAKE MY DEFENSE and there was never an implication that I must keep it short because it inconveniences those who choose to act as arbitrators.

I did get to the point, it's just that my point took longer to establish. That doesn't mean the point is any less valid. And if keeping it short is complicit to making it easier for them to rule in my favor then that is a piss poor means of judicial conduct and integrity.

And......"they usually get it right" doesn't fly with me...I didn't pay for someone to come close to getting it right, I paid for someone to read and care about my defense as their job requires! I'm quite sure I'd be out of a job if I "usually got it right"...my job is to get it right and if I don't or cannot on my own, find out how and/or rectify the situation - that seems simple enough.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Hahahaha :

Down vote the Congressional Record and 7th.VP of the US.

haha

Pathetic.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

You're STILL claiming this?

Even after I showed you and you admitted the congressional record says no such thing? Weak.

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

Well, My Post is Gone :

DP just lost it? Hummmm . . . . . . Let's try again.
========================================
VAGUE … very imprecise ?

Let me clarify then.
James Traficant
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, Page H-1303

( Note – I suggest a visit to your closest Federal Repository and read direct from the Record. There are purported copies of his presentation on the web that are not true transcriptions. )(This is where I didn't follow my own advice, and it took me a a bit to remember, read my own hard copy of the record and search a pdf to correct myself)

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.
==========================================
This statement is in the record. See PDF referenced above. The rest is extrapolation from the cut and paste source. But it is gone from this board anyway.

The remainder of my redacted post. Wonder if this will disappear also?
==========================================
“Whether a government agent is excercising an office of trust, profit or honor." You know what, that is not any kind of legal concept I've ever heard of.”

That tells me something.

Constitution : Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 7.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 8.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 3

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Art. VI, Sec. 1, Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now maybe you've heard of it. On to Trust.

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".

- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States ) - A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States - (1851 posthumous )

An interesting read in itself. While at the Fed. Repository I suggest finding a copy of Bogert on Trusts, older the better. Your local Court House Library may well have a recent Hornbook edition of Bogert's TRUSTS, but a better understanding of fiduciary responsibility will come from Bogert's HANDBOOK of the Law of Trusts and Trustees.

You might also look for - Administrative law, 2nd ed., by Alfred C. Aman, Jr., William T. Mayton. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001.

Admiralty and maritime law, 4th ed., Practitioner’s Edition, by Thomas J. Schoenbaum. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2004.

For more insight into the areas you seem to be interested in.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

..and HERE is what you originally posted

...compare and contrast! :) !

http://www.dailypaul.com/286477/the-greater-sovereign-soluti...

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

Nope :

My "The government is not 'Sovereign' either :" post is still here;

my "VAGUE ... very imprecise ?" post in response to you is gone.

See Recent Comments - http://www.dailypaul.com/user/52602 - for the title as listed.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

your post isnt gone

I linked to it, in my post right above this one. I realize you don't want people reading what an idiot you were, but the post still exists.

Further, Traficant when he said "Chapter 11" was speaking figuratively. I know that is over your heads but the US hasn't declared bankruptcy. The largest bankruptcy for a long time was the Orange County CA chapter 11, then recently that was eclipsed by Jefferson County. But no, the US has never declared Chapter 11. I have a PACER account, do you need proof?

Have a nice Memorial Day weekend.

P.S. Look, you're on the losing end of this. You and I know it. If you want to keep going around and around, I will keep busting you up publically while you make claims that I can debunk. It can get really entertaining but ultimately, is that how you want to be remembered. Now go and lick your wounds.

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

I See My Post Under Attention is Back :

RP glitch, maybe. My system glitch, maybe. Not sure how technically, but in ignorance presume it could happen. Mods caught out and recovering, also maybe. Just glad it's all back for now. I stand by my previous statements regarding it's disappearance from MY screen. Didn't care to make a screen capture and argue about it.

Thanks for the citation : Sesma v. Dept. of Rev., OTC-MD No 001078F, WL 958920. I'll grab it next time I'm in the Repository. I've corrected my relevant post and apologised to this community. Take it for what it's worth. I'll leave it to individual readers to form their own opinions regarding character and nature of the discussion.

I didn't come here to defend or proffer any “Sovereign” or “Straw-man” arguments, and indeed stayed out of your other thread for that very reason. Most of the “Individual Sovereign” boys and girls are half cocked at best and half asses at worst.

Now on to another point mentioned which you have thus far deigned to address in deference to pecking at the Trafficant mis quote.
============
To quote you - “Whether a government agent is excercising an office of trust, profit or honor." You know what, that is not any kind of legal concept I've ever heard of.”

That tells me something.

Constitution : Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 7.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 8.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 3

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Art. VI, Sec. 1, Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now maybe you've heard of it. On to Trust.

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".

- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States ) - A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States - (1851 posthumous )
================== Multiple formats available HERE ===========
I understand that Constitutional studies is currently a specialised area for lawyers and probably out of your immediate realm. It is also my experience that the federal Bankruptcy and Trust obligations are areas where political candidates and current functionaries balk at discussion. Feel free to ask your Profs. or legal mentors about this. Could prove enlightening.

Safe Weekend to you also. One and All.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

ooh you have to go to the repository?

my oh my...why not just a law library...and why don;t you have a "hard copy" like you do of the congressional record circa 1933...or so you say...

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

something else to chew on

An actual court decision, where the very language you tried to use, of a purported quote supposedly (but not actually) from the Congressional record, was debunked:

http://or.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.2...

Read it and weep. Like you, that unsuccessful sovrun strawman bs artist tried to claim the same thing. The court noted "Notwithstanding the unknown source of the quotation, it appears to be the basis of Mr. Detrick's understanding of the law." LOL

In particular, the following paragraph is edifying:

"Merits of Claim

Plaintiff quotes extensively from a "speech" given by former Representative James Traficant to explain his theory of why individuals are chattel. As noted above, the bulk of language "quoted" by Plaintiff was not in the speech as reported in the Congressional Record. However, whether former Representative Traficant actually said the words attributed to him is not material to the court's decision. That is because "[t]he only possible interpretation of law leads to the inescapable conclusion that plaintiffs' arguments are totally without merit." Sesma v. Dept. of Rev., OTC-MD No 001078F, WL 958920, *4 (July 31, 2001) (awarding $2,000 in damages for pursuing a frivolous appeal). *fn6"

ROFL FAIL FAIL FAIL ROFL

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

deacon's picture

yeah and the supreme court ruled

that no one can file a law suit unless they were personally affected
so no one has merit or standing until they get droned(which is a bit late)
and is the case of obamacare,they say the same thing
and are you saying the traficant speech was cut, spliced and or
shortened for affect?
this one here?

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

rather, it never happened.

He said the intro sentence or two, that's it. And even then, he was speaking dramatically and figuratively. Using hyperbole. I'm pretty sure that everyone there at the time knew that, too, seeing as to how the US has never declared chapter 11 bankruptcy (ROFL). The rest was made up. Look this has already been explained, I even cited a court case about it.

Standing to sue is a concept I'm pretty sure you've not studied in any detail.

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

Oh god...

Can you PLEASE make this its own post? People need to see what happens when they actually try this crap in court.

Eric Hoffer

wolfe's picture

I second that...

Mixed emotions, every time this stuff comes up:

1) I despise the scam artists perpetrating these things that will ultimately hurt people (some horribly) to make a buck off of the gullible.

2) I pity the gullible who fall for it. But in some ways, those who are willing to turn over cash for this sort of thing... well, "a fool and his money..."

3) I am embarrassed to be associated philosophically with people that would do either of the above.

But I am always impressed by some individuals commitment to their fellow man, such as Boneless Chicken, which if I am not mistaken I have conversed with under a previous nickname, and yourself, who tirelessly work to help protect the gullible from themselves. And that, I am proud to be associated with.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

deacon's picture

how do you know it is a scam?

is it because no one can win in a rigged,for profit court of law?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Not Courts Of Law, Courts of Commerce

The courts the United States runs today are not Law courts. That ended completely with Erie Railroad vs, Thompson in 1936. Other than a small claim in small claims court the people have no real access to the jurisdiction of Law.
What the United States substituted is employee contracts. The Social Security application is a job application. All the Statutes and codes only apply to federal employees, thus contract breach in contract court, not Law.
Of course their fictional contract is a million miles of code so the fictional employee is always guilty of breaking some company rules, but they are not laws.

The Oracle