AP: Sovereign Citizens spin History, Reject Government

[Fergasun]

AP: Sovereign Citizens spin History, Reject Government

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- They call themselves sovereign citizens, U.S. residents who declare themselves above state and federal laws. Many don't register children's births, carry driver's licenses or recognize the court system. Some peddle schemes that use fictional legal loopholes to eliminate debt and avoid foreclosures. A few such believers are violent: Two police officers in Arkansas died in a shootout in May after stopping an Ohio sovereign citizen and his son.

...

At the heart of their belief system: The government creates a secret identity for each citizen at birth, a "straw man," that controls an account at the U.S. Treasury used as collateral for foreign debt. File enough documents at the right offices and the money in those accounts can be used to pay off debt or make purchases worth thousands of dollars.

...

Jim Jarvis is Ohio coordinator for the Restore America Plan, which shares similar beliefs with the Guardians group. He maintains the country has lacked a legitimate government since Congress failed to adjourn properly in 1861. The people who are crazy, he says, are those who won't do the research to find out what's really going on in the country.

Do we have any adherents to this in our midst?

How are they going to fight for their rights if they don't recognize the Courts that guarantee and protect such rights? Oh, I see, because those Courts have rejected their theories?

[ACW]

Okay, you all know I'm a libertarian, but this is just :paranoid: :bsflag:

Where's MY straw man account? :mad:

[Stew]

It may all be true. We all may be living under a Govt that shouldn't be able to do anything to us including take our money from us. The facts may be ther, right there and what Jim Jarvis believes may infact be the truth.

With that said, I just don't have the brass bowling balls to buck that Govt and end up like William Cooper, or the more likely scenario, in jail. Its much easier just to give the big pimp their cut, and live free within the confines of their rules. Ill be dead one day anyways, no need to ruin what I have going for me now. Succeed as much as I can while playing their game, and live off the residuals and any form of social security until Im dead, and looking forward to it.

[Symbol]

It may all be true. We all may be living under a Govt that shouldn't be able to do anything to us including take our money from us. The facts may be ther, right there and what Jim Jarvis believes may infact be the truth.

I don't know about the rest of the stuff, but I do know the government has the right to "take money" from us through taxation because the people who fought the English gave them the right. The quote, "no taxation without representation" come to mind? We voted our representation to congress, that gives them the right.

[mojobo]

Okay, you all know I'm a libertarian, but this is just :paranoid: :bsflag:

Where's MY straw man account? :mad:

I hope people realize that these people are more than likely anarchists and not libertarians and that there is a difference between these two philosophies...

[Stew]

I don't know about the rest of the stuff, but I do know the government has the right to "take money" from us through taxation because the people who fought the English gave them the right. The quote, "no taxation without representation" come to mind? We voted our representation to congress, that gives them the right.

Either way, Ill pay gladly for them to leave me alone. Also, if the Govt hasn't been legally adjourned since 1861, they don't have the right to do anything to me until they rectify the issue at hand.Afterall, they are conducting the business of the Govt illegally, hence Jim jarvis and his cause. I just don't really care, and would rather pay them to leave me in peace the best they can.

[Landryslegend]

it may all be true. We all may be living under a govt that shouldn't be able to do anything to us including take our money from us. The facts may be ther, right there and what jim jarvis believes may infact be the truth.

With that said, i just don't have the brass bowling balls to buck that govt and end up like william cooper, or the more likely scenario, in jail. Its much easier just to give the big pimp their cut, and live free within the confines of their rules. Ill be dead one day anyways, no need to ruin what i have going for me now. Succeed as much as i can while playing their game, and live off the residuals and any form of social security until im dead, and looking forward to it.

bingo!

[Fergasun]

It may all be true. We all may be living under a Govt that shouldn't be able to do anything to us including take our money from us. The facts may be there, right there and what Jim Jarvis believes may infact be the truth.

Let me stop this right here. Because I find this argument ridiculous. You should find it ridiculous as well. It "may" be possible? No, it is not. Thankfully the Courts have already settled this question of law. I'm glad that its the job of the Courts to settle such facts, especially such a key fact of law that "may" invalidate the past one hundred and forty plus years of our government. It's a shame that people still peddle this nonsense and others buy into the nonsense.

Although I guess some people could be convinced that the Courts are wrong and part of the whole conspiracy.

US v. Johnson in the CD Illinois (the case is not important but the legal analysis within is):

Defendant first argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction and the United States lacks standing over him because, he argues, that the defendant named in the Indictment does not exist. Basically, Defendant argues that he is a "nonjuridical entity" or a sovereign citizen and thus the Court has no jurisdiction over him. However, the Seventh Circuit has readily rejected such arguments alleging the sovereignty of citizens, finding such arguments to be frivolous. 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 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Phillips, 326 Fed. Appx. 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (dismissing lack of personal jurisdiction argument as frivolous because courts have jurisdiction over defendants brought before them on Indictments alleging violations of federal law). Further, a district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who "is within the territory of the United States." Burke, 425 F.3d at 408. Thus Defendant is still within the territory of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States. See Hilgeford, 7 F.3d at 1342 (noting the Seventh Circuit had taken up the proposition that a defendant is a sovereign entity not subject to the laws of the United States and found the proposition to be "simply wrong." (citing Sloan, 939 F.2d at 501)). Therefore, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that he is somehow a sovereign or "nonjuridical entity" who is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss on the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Here's the 7th Circuit Appeals Court in US vs. Hilgeford (1993):

We are again faced with a "shop worn" argument of the tax protester movement. The defendant in this case apparently holds a sincere belief that he is a citizen of the mythical "Indiana State Republic" and for that reason is an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts. This belief is, of course, incorrect. We addressed the same issue in United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir.1991). Defendant Sloan argued that he was a citizen of the state of Indiana, but not a citizen of the United States and therefore not subject to its laws. We discussed this proposition fully and concluded that it was "simply wrong." Id. at 501.

In a factually similar case, a recent appeal on the same basis was handled with appropriate despatch by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir.1992). Defendant therein claimed to be a citizen of the "Republic of Idaho" and not a U.S. citizen, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The Jagim court found this issue to be "completely without merit" and "patently frivolous" and rejected it "without expending any more of this Court's resources on [its] discussion." Id. We do the same.

Another one, US v. Jagim (1992) in the 8th Circuit:

Depew's brief on appeal raises numerous arguments pro se, some of the more imaginative of which are: he cannot be punished under the tax laws of the United States because he is a citizen of the sovereign state (the "Republic") of Idaho, now claiming "asylum" in the "Republic of Colorado"; the government in prosecuting him is acting on behalf of an agency, the IRS, that is controlled by a foreign entity; the court had no authority to decide this case because, among other reasons, "there is no nexus, i.e., voluntary contract between [Depew] and the real parties of interest nor IRS," Brief of Appellant Depew at 14; and the tax sought is an excise tax but the tax law does not state what "privilege" is being taxed. These issues are completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion.

[Stew]

Let me stop this right here. Because I find this argument ridiculous. You should find it ridiculous as well. It "may" be possible? No, it is not. Thankfully the Courts have already settled this question of law. I'm glad that its the job of the Courts to settle such facts, especially such a key fact of law that "may" invalidate the past one hundred and forty plus years of our government. It's a shame that people still peddle this nonsense and others buy into the nonsense.

Although I guess some people could be convinced that the Courts are wrong and part of the whole conspiracy.

US v. Johnson in the CD Illinois (the case is not important but the legal analysis within is):

Here's the 7th Circuit Appeals Court in US vs. Hilgeford (1993):

Another one, US v. Jagim (1992) in the 8th Circuit:

The bottom line is "Who cares if the Govt is legal or not?" Who really cares? Im still going to pay them to leave me alone. I have never not paid taxes, and I really don't care if our Govt is legal or not, as long as they leave me the F alone. They can take their cut of my money, Ill live with it. I really don't care what the Govt does as long as it minimally effects my life.

Ive never been one to question legal authority (police, Govt, validity of the law, etc). I don't hate police, I dont think the man is out to get me, I just want to be left alone.

Im not peddling anything, and I don't care enough to believe if its true or not. I just hope that I actually get something back for the cut that the Govt takes... and if i don't get the world, or if my tax dollars go to help someone else besides myself, I really dont care too much about that either, as long as Im left alone by the Govt for the most part.

So ok, The Govt is legal. Hooray!

[stevenaa]

Let me stop this right here. Because I find this argument ridiculous. You should find it ridiculous as well. It "may" be possible? No, it is not. Thankfully the Courts have already settled this question of law. I'm glad that its the job of the Courts to settle such facts, especially such a key fact of law that "may" invalidate the past one hundred and forty plus years of our government.

You mean the courts put in place by the same illegitimate governement they are protecting? Hah!!! :pfft:

[Hubbs]

Yeah, I'd say they're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[Stew]

If you pay your taxes... it shouldnt matter either way... right?

[Fergasun]

I think it is hugely important and would care if the government were somehow illegitimate. I never looked at ducking my taxes because it seems like tax law is pretty definitive.

[Cdowwe]

Everyone has a complaint about the federal govt... I dont know one person who says the federal govt we have in place is perfect. I have many complaints about what the federal govt spends money on, the life long politicians in Washington, and watching people cheat the system as I pay my taxes.

That being said.. I know our system isnt perfect. But when I turn on the news and see some crap hole country in Africa or the Middle East and witness their situation, I will gladly pay my taxes.

Watching someone like Barney Frank talk out of his ass on CSPAN from my couch in my air conditioned house knowing I can drive my car on a paved road and feel safe because police are looking out for me > Living in a hut waiting for some tribal war chief to come murder my female neighbor for accidentally showing some leg

Extreme example I know

[Bang]

Everyone has a complaint about the federal govt... I dont know one person who says the federal govt we have in place is perfect. I have many complaints about what the federal govt spends money on, the life long politicians in Washington, and watching people cheat the system as I pay my taxes.

That being said.. I know our system isnt perfect. But when I turn on the news and see some crap hole country in Africa or the Middle East and witness their situation, I will gladly pay my taxes.

Watching someone like Barney Frank talk out of his ass on CSPAN from my couch in my air conditioned house knowing I can drive my car on a paved road and feel safe because police are looking out for me > Living in a hut waiting for some tribal war chief to come murder my female neighbor for accidentally showing some leg

Extreme example I know

Excellent post.

~Bang

[TimmySmith]

Everyone has a complaint about the federal govt... I dont know one person who says the federal govt we have in place is perfect. I have many complaints about what the federal govt spends money on, the life long politicians in Washington, and watching people cheat the system as I pay my taxes.

That being said.. I know our system isnt perfect. But when I turn on the news and see some crap hole country in Africa or the Middle East and witness their situation, I will gladly pay my taxes.

Watching someone like Barney Frank talk out of his ass on CSPAN from my couch in my air conditioned house knowing I can drive my car on a paved road and feel safe because police are looking out for me > Living in a hut waiting for some tribal war chief to come murder my female neighbor for accidentally showing some leg

Extreme example I know

I do not subscribe to your assertion that the government deserves so much credit for civilization. I do not feel safe because of the police. I feel safe because 99.9% of our citizenry is law abiding and wants to contribute. John Kennedy did not say "Ask what you can do for your GOVERNMENT", he "Ask what you can do for your COUNTRY". It seems the distinction is rather blurred for some people.

[Barney B]

I do not subscribe to your assertion that the government deserves so much credit for civilization.

Can you give us any evidence to the contrary, then, like examples of people prospering in a modern, civilized society without a functioning central government? The World Bank says that the life expectancy of people living in Somalia these days is less than 50 years. :whoknows:

.

[Cdowwe]

Can you give us any evidence to the contrary, then, like examples of people prospering in a modern, civilized society without a functioning central government? The World Bank says that the life expectancy of people living in Somalia these days is less than 50 years. :whoknows:

.

Exactly. I'm sure everyone changes their tune quick when that ambulance needs to get to their house really quick on that paved road. Lets not forget the whole 911 system is a govt system that works pretty good (Most of the time).

99.9% of the citizens may be law abiding, but if govt never existed, that # would be a lot lower. Plus, 0.1% of 300 million is alot of bad people that I am glad the police protect me from

[PokerPacker]

I don't know about the rest of the stuff, but I do know the government has the right to "take money" from us through taxation because the people who fought the English gave them the right. The quote, "no taxation without representation" come to mind? We voted our representation to congress, that gives them the right.

What about Washington DC?

[Hubbs]

Exactly. I'm sure everyone changes their tune quick when that ambulance needs to get to their house really quick on that paved road. Lets not forget the whole 911 system is a govt system that works pretty good (Most of the time).

99.9% of the citizens may be law abiding, but if govt never existed, that # would be a lot lower. Plus, 0.1% of 300 million is alot of bad people that I am glad the police protect me from

:secret:

Police and ambulances have nothing to do with the federal government.

[ACW]

Can you give us any evidence to the contrary, then, like examples of people prospering in a modern, civilized society without a functioning central government? The World Bank says that the life expectancy of people living in Somalia these days is less than 50 years. :whoknows:

I'm a minarchist. Gov't should be limited to defense, courts, the police, and MAYBE a few other services.

[TimmySmith]

Can you give us any evidence to the contrary, then, like examples of people prospering in a modern, civilized society without a functioning central government? The World Bank says that the life expectancy of people living in Somalia these days is less than 50 years.

I am not talking about not having a centralized government. I just thought that post was giving the government the credit for civilization. Our country was founded by men on the right of the masses to be free with the most limited government intrusion ever conceived. The entire Bill of Rights was designed limit government to it's absolute minimum. It has evolved into something entirely different and thoroughly dysfunctional. Paring it down back to it's intent would hardly turn the US into a "craphole". The citizenry is too strong for that.

[Barney B]

I'm a minarchist. Gov't should be limited to defense, courts, the police, and MAYBE a few other services.

I am not talking about not having a centralized government. I just thought that post was giving the government the credit for civilization. Our country was founded by men on the right of the masses to be free with the most limited government intrusion ever conceived. The entire Bill of Rights was designed limit government to it's absolute minimum. It has evolved into something entirely different and thoroughly dysfunctional. Paring it down back to it's intent would hardly turn the US into a "craphole". The citizenry is too strong for that.

Then you guys both, have legit cases, IMO, unlike these Sovereign Citizens members.

But it does seem to me (and this is a very minor point, I'll grant you) that, historically, it's not that government is necessarily responsible for civilization, but that the two seem to go hand in hand. So I'm glad that I misunderstood your intent.

Probably all reasonable people would agree that government should be no larger or more intrusive than is absolutely necessary, and that reasonable people can disagree on the level of necessity.

For instance, I really like the idea of public education - I'd say that without it, our national workforce would have trouble competing globally, and that there's scant evidence that the free market would correct for this.

As someone once said, "There are things worth doing that the free market just won't do."

.

[Bang]

Then you guys both, have legit cases, IMO, unlike these Sovereign Citizens members.

But it does seem to me (and this is a very minor point, I'll grant you) that, historically, it's not that government is necessarily responsible for civilization, but that the two seem to go hand in hand. So I'm glad that I misunderstood your intent.

Probably all reasonable people would agree that government should be no larger or more intrusive than is absolutely necessary, and that reasonable people can disagree on the level of necessity.

For instance, I really like the idea of public education - I'd say that without it, our national workforce would have trouble competing globally, and that there's scant evidence that the free market would correct for this.

As someone once said, "There are things worth doing that the free market just won't do."

.

Damn fine post, Chief. I agree with every word.

It is the social contract we have with each other. We all chip in for things that enable us to have better lives.

Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that our government is ourselves, not some ruling class that lords over our lives.

And because we tend to forget it, sometimes so do the ones we entrust to govern.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

I feel safe because 99.9% of our citizenry is law abiding and wants to contribute. .

yeah but that 0.1% can be a real pain in the ass

to deal with them you'd need lynch mobs, which is really just a much crappier version of police