FBI: (Peaceful) Letters to Gov. => Violence

[MelissaWV]

Associated Press story (so expect to see it pop up all over...)


WASHINGTON – The FBI is warning police across the country that an anti-government group's call to remove governors from office could provoke violence.

The group called the Guardians of the free Republics wants to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its Web site.

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently.

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press.

The FBI expects all 50 governors will eventually receive such letters.

Governors whose offices reported receiving the letters included Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chet Culver of Iowa, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, and Gary Herbert of Utah, where officials stepped up security in response to the letter.

In Nevada, screening machines for visitors and packages were added to the main entrance to the state Capitol as a precaution after Gibbons received one of the letters.

"We're not really overly concerned, but at the same time we don't want to sit back and do nothing and regret it," Deputy Chief of Staff Lynn Hettrick said.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said federal authorities had alerted the governor that such a letter might be coming, and it arrived Monday or Tuesday. Boyd, who described the letter as "non-threatening," said it was opened by a staffer and immediately turned over to the Michigan State Police.

Jindal's office confirmed the governor had received one of the letters and directed questions to the Louisiana State Police.

"They called us as they do for any letter that's out of the norm," said Lt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman.

He declined to provide specifics about the letter, but said, "not knowing the group and the information contained in the letter warranted state police to review it."

The FBI warning comes at a time of heightened attention to far-right extremist groups after the arrest of nine Christian militia members last weekend accused of plotting violence.

In explaining the letters sent to the governors, the intelligence note says officials have no specific knowledge of plans to use violence, but they caution police to be aware in case other individuals interpret the letters "as a justification for violence or other criminal actions."

The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive. A small number of these people are armed and resort to violence, according to the intelligence report.

Last weekend, the FBI conducted raids on suspected members of a Christian militia in the Midwest that was allegedly planning to kill police officers. In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.

Emphasis mine, as always.

WTF is this shit, really? They have letters from a group they even acknowledge isn't violent, but they caution that other people might see the letters as a call to arms. How would they, if this story hadn't come out? Who had even heard of these letters? Why are "white separatists" right next to "extreme civil libertarians"? Why is "needing a license to drive" a "duty of a U.S. citizen"? My God, man, my God. It's worse and worse by the day.

[LittleLightShining]

It's on the radio news right now.

Security boosted around Vt. governor (http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100402/NEWS02/4020333/1003/NEWS02)

MONTPELIER (AP) — The Vermont State Police have heightened security around Gov. Jim Douglas in response to threats made to governors across the country.

State Police spokeswoman Sgt. Tara Thomas said Thursday that police cannot discuss any aspect of the security. The governor's spokesman referred questions to state police.

[pcosmar]

Associated Press story (so expect to see it pop up all over...)



Emphasis mine, as always.

WTF is this shit, really? They have letters from a group they even acknowledge isn't violent, but they caution that other people might see the letters as a call to arms. How would they, if this story hadn't come out? Who had even heard of these letters? Why are "white separatists" right next to "extreme civil libertarians"? Why is "needing a license to drive" a "duty of a U.S. citizen"? My God, man, my God. It's worse and worse by the day.

Ok. you're a terrorist.
Go to Jail, Go directly to Jail, Do not pass GO, Do not collect $200.

:(

[fedup100]

Go here, not bullshit, I thought so too, we may have a shot at somethiong real and peaceful!!

Please combine these threads someone.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231468


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1027893/pg1

[MelissaWV]

I'd rather they weren't combined, considering this is specifically geared towards the FBI/LE's overreaction, but it's a good cross-reference.

LLS - but they're not concerned! The article said so! :rolleyes:

[wizardwatson]

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently.

Gotta love that line.

And how exactly would that "lead others to act out violently"? I mean, no one really even knows about the Guardians of the Free...

Oh, that's right, you just posted an AP story about it.

The only thing that might incite violence is your AP story saying that it would incite violence. Especially when you finish it off by saying:


In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.

All these attempts at staging violence are retarded. We all need to stay connected online and snuff these attempts out as they come.

How ironic that the R3volution has, as one of its primary objectives, to stop the state from inciting violence and pretending that its coming from those who only want peace and freedom.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wonder who originated the "intelligence note" mentioned in the story (and made sure that this got major media coverage)? :rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

Associated Press story (so expect to see it pop up all over...)



Emphasis mine, as always.

WTF is this shit, really? They have letters from a group they even acknowledge isn't violent, but they caution that other people might see the letters as a call to arms. How would they, if this story hadn't come out? Who had even heard of these letters? Why are "white separatists" right next to "extreme civil libertarians"? Why is "needing a license to drive" a "duty of a U.S. citizen"? My God, man, my God. It's worse and worse by the day.

Utter imbecilic action. States are legally constituted, their officers hold constitutional authority, and they are sovereign. You need a liscense to drive because you're driving on government roads. These people are nutsos.

[LittleLightShining]

They tried to recruit me for this but I passed. Bless 'em for trying to do something peacefully, but I'm really glad I'm not involved.

[John Taylor]

Gotta love that line.

And how exactly would that "lead others to act out violently"? I mean, no one really even knows about the Guardians of the Free...

Oh, that's right, you just posted an AP story about it.

The only thing that might incite violence is your AP story saying that it would incite violence. Especially when you finish it off by saying:



All these attempts at staging violence are retarded. We all need to stay connected online and snuff these attempts out as they come.

How ironic that the R3volution has, as one of its primary objectives, to stop the state from inciting violence and pretending that its coming from those who only want peace and freedom.

Making a "sovereign citizen" argument will get you convicted or arrested, likely both.

People who espouse such hair-brained theories would be far better served spreading the freedom philosophy than by driving around without liscense plates on their car pretending to be members of some soviereign indian tribe.

[John Taylor]

They tried to recruit me for this but I passed. Bless 'em for trying to do something peacefully, but I'm really glad I'm not involved.

Good, stay the hell away from people who offer you "get out of jail free" cards... easy solutions to centralization of power. We must focus on educating the people regarding their constitutional liberties, and change those who represent us in Washington and in our state capitols.

[MelissaWV]

Utter imbecilic action. States are legally constituted, their officers hold constitutional authority, and they are sovereign. You need a liscense to drive because you're driving on government roads. These people are nutsos.

You aren't necessarily driving on Government roads. The phrasing of it in this article is moronic. A citizen's duty to have a government-issued driver's license? What? Why? What if I don't drive on your damned roads? :confused:

[John Taylor]

You aren't necessarily driving on Government roads. The phrasing of it in this article is moronic. A citizen's duty to have a government-issued driver's license? What? Why? What if I don't drive on your damned roads? :confused:

If you stay on private property, you should be free to drive as you damned well please. The states have the constitutional power to require that people driving on their roads meet certain specifications. You meet them, you are liscensed, it isn't difficult.

[fedup100]

Yeah, we got some real wizards here.

[John Taylor]

Yeah, we got some real wizards here.

Haha, they'll end up making real license plates instead of driving around with their card-board ones!

[pcosmar]

There seems to be a theme (pushed by the government) I can't help think that several events (and accusations) are related.
:(

[MelissaWV]

Haha, they'll end up making real license plates instead of driving around with their card-board ones!

The point isn't whether or not the people are justified or intelligent or even sane. The point is that now writing letters that contain no threats of violence is bothering the FBI, and reason to beef up security. Asking anything of your Government is becoming an offense and a threat.

[John Taylor]

The point isn't whether or not the people are justified or intelligent or even sane. The point is that now writing letters that contain no threats of violence is bothering the FBI, and reason to beef up security. Asking anything of your Government is becoming an offense and a threat.

Well, asking them about something, or even petitioning them for a redress of grievances, that's fine and dandy, but if someone sent me a letter telling me I'd better be out of my offices in 3 days or I'd be removed, I'd carry my .45 to my desk with me. These governors, and the state police who protect them, are justifiably reacting.

[moostraks]

You aren't necessarily driving on Government roads. The phrasing of it in this article is moronic. A citizen's duty to have a government-issued driver's license? What? Why? What if I don't drive on your damned roads? :confused:

what if you don't use their healthcare...they don't care. The wording is crap. The government does not accept anyone who fails to bow down and lick their boots. They are chomping at the bit to increase police power. It matters not that they think these people are capable of accomplishing anything. So far attempts at inciting violence are falling far short of expectations it appears. So they will keep planting the seeds as they continue to squeeze.

I suppose in some people's eyes the fact that we utilize public roadways to walk should therefore authorize the state to ask for "papers please" to insure the safety of the general public from terrorists..:rolleyes:

[MelissaWV]

Well, asking them about something, or even petitioning them for a redress of grievances, that's fine and dandy, but if someone sent me a letter telling me I'd better be out of my offices in 3 days or I'd be removed, I'd carry my .45 to my desk with me. These governors, and the state police who protect them, are justifiably reacting.


Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message.

It doesn't say when the "removal" will happen, at least not in the article I posted.

A lot of people said "vote for the healthcare bill, and you'll be removed." There will, in fact, be a lot of removing in November.

The article's tone doesn't set off any alarm bells for you? Okay. But belittling the people that wrote the letters and saying they constitute a threat (which even the FBI doesn't seem to agree with) just makes me :rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

I suppose in some people's eyes the fact that we utilize public roadways to walk should therefore authorize the state to ask for "papers please" to insure the safety of the general public from terrorists..:rolleyes:

That's crap. It's perfectly constitutional for states to require people meet a certain level of expertise in order to utilize public roads. If you don't like it, travel via private property, call a cab, hitch a ride. Ultimately, if you don't like it, organize and abolish driver's liscenses in your state if you wish.

[Erazmus]

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently.

So people are responsible for other peoples' actions? Individualism has never been under more assault.

[John Taylor]

It doesn't say when the "removal" will happen, at least not in the article I posted.

A lot of people said "vote for the healthcare bill, and you'll be removed." There will, in fact, be a lot of removing in November.

The article's tone doesn't set off any alarm bells for you? Okay. But belittling the people that wrote the letters and saying they constitute a threat (which even the FBI doesn't seem to agree with) just makes me :rolleyes:

Oh contrare:


As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press.


Stating that someone who supports abill will be removed from office is different than saying to someone that: "you have one hour to leave your barricaded house, or you will be removed".

[MelissaWV]

So people are responsible for other peoples' actions? Individualism has never been under more assault.

Oh no, it's worse than that. People are responsible for other people's POTENTIAL actions. There's no action yet. There's no violence. There's just talk of "removing" those who do not vacate their Governor's mansion (admittedly by people who have no more power to do so than any other constituents).

[John Taylor]

So people are responsible for other peoples' actions? Individualism has never been under more assault.

Where were you during the Clinton administration???? Where were you the entire 20th century?

[John Taylor]

Oh no, it's worse than that. People are responsible for other people's POTENTIAL actions. There's no action yet. There's no violence. There's just talk of "removing" those who do not vacate their Governor's mansion (admittedly by people who have no more power to do so than any other constituents).

These people are acting like anarchists. They are seeking to remove the chief law enforcement officers of each sovereign state in this country.

[moostraks]

Well, asking them about something, or even petitioning them for a redress of grievances, that's fine and dandy, but if someone sent me a letter telling me I'd better be out of my offices in 3 days or I'd be removed, I'd carry my .45 to my desk with me. These governors, and the state police who protect them, are justifiably reacting.

From their website "And we will accomplish all of that – with your help – BEHIND THE SCENES, lawfully, peacefully, without violence and without risking civil war. "

The reason why everyone overreacts is because they are being told to overreact. All it takes is one person overreacting to protect themselves from a perceived grievance that never was to push the issue over the edge. This is what tptb are itching for and it is playing out like a train wreck in slow motion.

By making every response a perceived threat even though they say they do not believe this group capable or interested in violent response they are de facto making all issuances of grievances worthy of criminal investigations so no means of retort will be tolerated.

[Erazmus]

Where were you during the Clinton administration???? Where were you the entire 20th century?

Point me to the thread about Clinton and the 20th century and I'll post there too. ;)

[LittleLightShining]

These people are acting like anarchists. They are seeking to remove the chief law enforcement officers of each sovereign state in this country.

You obviously have no idea what they are trying to do. They are NOT anarchists. They are trying to get rid of the de facto government and replace it with the de jure government.

I sense a sock puppet at work, new, prolific member...

[pcosmar]

These people are acting like anarchists. They are seeking to remove the chief law enforcement officers of each sovereign state in this country.

Forget about these people. IT IS NOT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.
It is about the FBI and Federal Government declaring VIOLENCE where none exists.

Get it?
Got IT?

Good
:(

[moostraks]

That's crap. It's perfectly constitutional for states to require people meet a certain level of expertise in order to utilize public roads. If you don't like it, travel via private property, call a cab, hitch a ride. Ultimately, if you don't like it, organize and abolish driver's liscenses in your state if you wish.

And by further elaboration it becomes the responsibility of the government to protect you in an age of terrorism from walking public byways without government documentation. Therefore making it your duty to provide justification of necessity and intent....

BTW your knickers are in a twist when I have a license. So target someone else with your rage...

I have bigger fish to fry than the department of motor vehicles right now but thanks for the offer.

[Erazmus]

They had an informant in the ranks of the group they ambushed. Had the group really intended to enact violence, why didn't they just setup a sting and catch them in the act? This tells me the move to arrest the group was politically motivated.

Believe me, if the "plans" existed for real, the FBI would have waited till they mobilized. The severity of the charges would be worse and irrefutable.

[moostraks]

Forget about these people. IT IS NOT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.
It is about the FBI and Federal Government declaring VIOLENCE where none exists.

Get it?
Got IT?

Good
:(

thank you-voice of reason....

[John Taylor]

You obviously have no idea what they are trying to do. They are NOT anarchists. They are trying to get rid of the de facto government and replace it with the de jure government.

I sense a sock puppet at work, new, prolific member...

Yes, I understand this, unfortunately for them, the de facto government IS the de jure government. The state government, including the governor, is the consitutitonal chief executive of the state. What they are trying to do is lunacy, nothing less.

[MelissaWV]

Stating that someone who supports abill will be removed from office is different than saying to someone that: "you have one hour to leave your barricaded house, or you will be removed".

It's your property, in your example.

A better example would be a landlord saying to a tenant that, if they do not stop doing a certain something that is not explicitly against the terms of the lease (as these Governors are not doing something impeachable, otherwise I think that would be the threat), they will be removed. In fact, a landlord can do that by non-renewing, so it would be a "threat" that is only carried out upon the lapse of contract. The landlord is reponsible, ultimately, for your presence and has the right to get you off their property... but only at a certain time.

In the end, it makes you no less "removed."

Again, the investigators disagree with you, and made it very clear that they don't think the letters were violent in any way. I guess you know more than they do :p

How many times have you heard "throw the bums out of office!" and police presence has not been beefed up? Is the implication just taken for granted, that "throw the bums out of office!" does not refer to physically entering and picking up the official and assaulting them as one tosses them into the street? Normally that's a rallying cry for voting the "bums" out of office, but the two phrases are pretty interchangable.

I notice no charges were filed in conjunction with the letters, which we would be very likely to see if they were actually considered threats. These are, then, letters that fall into the "fine and dandy" category, but the AP story cautions that the "fine and dandy" letters might inspire people to do bad things.

We'll have to agree to disagree, too, I guess, but every time something happens or MIGHT happen or is perceived to POSSIBLY be ABOUT to happen to someone, our tax dollars go to helping them hide under the bed.

[John Taylor]

They had an informant in the ranks of the group they ambushed. Had the group really intended to enact violence, why didn't they just setup a sting and catch them in the act? This tells me the move to arrest the group was politically motivated.

Believe me, if the "plans" existed for real, the FBI would have waited till they mobilized. The severity of the charges would be worse and irrefutable.

What group is this that was "ambushed"??? What the hell are you talking about?

[MelissaWV]

Forget about these people. IT IS NOT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.
It is about the FBI and Federal Government declaring VIOLENCE where none exists.

Get it?
Got IT?

Good
:(

This. Somehow I don't think he'll get it, though, and will respond with how silly the people writing the letters are.

[Erazmus]

What group is this that was "ambushed"??? What the hell are you talking about?

This was in reference to one of the "militia groups" that were arrested for having plans to attack police and stuff. Sorry, didn't mean to throw a curve ball at you.

*Perhaps ambushed was the wrong choice of words.*

[John Taylor]

It's your property, in your example.

A better example would be a landlord saying to a tenant that, if they do not stop doing a certain something that is not explicitly against the terms of the lease (as these Governors are not doing something impeachable, otherwise I think that would be the threat), they will be removed. In fact, a landlord can do that by non-renewing, so it would be a "threat" that is only carried out upon the lapse of contract. The landlord is reponsible, ultimately, for your presence and has the right to get you off their property... but only at a certain time.

In the end, it makes you no less "removed."

Again, the investigators disagree with you, and made it very clear that they don't think the letters were violent in any way. I guess you know more than they do :p

How many times have you heard "throw the bums out of office!" and police presence has not been beefed up? Is the implication just taken for granted, that "throw the bums out of office!" does not refer to physically entering and picking up the official and assaulting them as one tosses them into the street? Normally that's a rallying cry for voting the "bums" out of office, but the two phrases are pretty interchangable.

I notice no charges were filed in conjunction with the letters, which we would be very likely to see if they were actually considered threats. These are, then, letters that fall into the "fine and dandy" category, but the AP story cautions that the "fine and dandy" letters might inspire people to do bad things.

We'll have to agree to disagree, too, I guess, but every time something happens or MIGHT happen or is perceived to POSSIBLY be ABOUT to happen to someone, our tax dollars go to helping them hide under the bed.

I didn't say the letters were violent, I said, I think the response was appropriate.

No one just said, "throw the bums out of office", they are saying, we think you're usurping and illegally holding power, and you have three days tyo give it up, or, perhaps George W. Bush into Iraq style, you're going to be "removed".

[MelissaWV]

I didn't say the letters were violent, I said, I think the response was appropriate.

No one just said, "throw the bums out of office", they are saying, we think you're usurping and illegally holding power, and you have three days tyo give it up, or, perhaps George W. Bush into Iraq style, you're going to be "removed".

That's what the letter said? Really? How silly of the article to completely misrepresent it.

[John Taylor]

This. Somehow I don't think he'll get it, though, and will respond with how silly the people writing the letters are.

Missy,

The people sending these letters are "sovereign citizen" types. They can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag with the law...and yet they repeatedly cite old, overturned, antiquated and long defunct portions of some abolished legal code to attempt to show that some evil corporation or the Queen of England is really ruling this country.

Now, you're more than free to join in with their mad dash to the sanitorum, but I don't think these tactics are going to bring people to the freedom philosophy.

[John Taylor]

That's what the letter said? Really? How silly of the article to completely misrepresent it.

You and I both know who these people are who are sending this type of letters. They are crazy, moon-bat, crazy. They make Marshall Applewhite look like Erasmus.

[Anti Federalist]

The level of heat is increasing.

Government is bristling and hunkering down into a defensive mode.

"Chatter" is increasing as well.

A massive "false flag" op is in the making.

Keep your heads down.

[moostraks]

Wow didn't take wiki long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

[Erazmus]

You and I both know who these people are who are sending this type of letters. They are crazy, moon-bat, crazy. They make Marshall Applewhite look like Erasmus.

Nice, ad hominem. Way to lose any respect, a true sign of losing battle. By the way, are you referencing the philosopher Erasmus? :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Now, you're more than free to join in with their mad dash to the sanitorum, but I don't think these tactics are going to bring people to the freedom philosophy.

Perhaps you should read this article in this thread,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=238687

It deals more with the reality of the situation.


Missy,
:confused:

Oh boy. :rolleyes:

[moostraks]

The level of heat is increasing.

Government is bristling and hunkering down into a defensive mode.

"Chatter" is increasing as well.

A massive "false flag" op is in the making.

Keep your heads down.

yep...really troublesome. Especially how it feels like the atmosphere of a gunfight at high noon.

[pcosmar]

The level of heat is increasing.

Government is bristling and hunkering down into a defensive mode.

"Chatter" is increasing as well.

A massive "false flag" op is in the making.

Keep your heads down.

Eyes and ears open. ;)

[John Taylor]

Nice, ad hominem. Way to lose any respect, a true sign of losing battle. By the way, are you referencing the philosopher Erasmus? :rolleyes:

Ad hominum? If anyone of you have actually met these guys, at gun shows or a political meeting, they make truthers look sane. They seriously believe that the queen of England controls Americas attorneys.

[moostraks]

Ad hominum? If anyone of you have actually met these guys, at gun shows or a political meeting, they make truthers look sane. They seriously believe that the queen of England controls Americas attorneys.

anybody else you want to malign while you are at it???

[John Taylor]

Wow didn't take wiki long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

These crazies have been around for years and years, but their positions are consistent. They want to drive around Timothy McVeigh style without liscense plates, they think attorneys are members of a secret royalist plot from England, and they think that courts are somehow admiralty courts and not "article III courts", even though they are talking about state court systems... nutsos.

[tpreitzel]

anybody else you want to malign while you are at it???

;)

[John Taylor]

anybody else you want to malign while you are at it???

Malign? No one is maligning anyone, the facts speak for themselves, they really DO believe that the Queen of England is behind a massive conspiracy infilrating and controlling American court systems.

These people are precisely those who will destroy the freedom movement if they manage to associate themselves with it.

[Erazmus]

Ad hominum?

I don't know what an ad hominum is, but I know what an ad hominem is.


If anyone of you have actually met these guys,

Why do we need to know them? It sounds like you've lived with them the way you're talking. I don't presume knowledge on anyone's behalf.


...at gun shows or a political meeting, they make truthers look sane. They seriously believe that the queen of England controls Americas attorneys.

Another group attack. Thanks for telling us what other people think. Group-think much? I guess we're all thought criminals. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Ad hominum? If anyone of you have actually met these guys,

Yup, I have. I don't believe that they are relevant enough to argue about.

What IS relevant is the governments response. They will initiate violence.
Expect violence. People will die.
All over irrelevance.
:mad:

[John Taylor]

I don't know what an ad hominum is, but I know what an ad hominem is.



Why do we need to know them? It sounds like you've lived with them the way you're talking. I don't presume knowledge on anyone's behalf.



Another group attack. Thanks for telling us what other people think. Group-think much? I guess we're all thought criminals. :rolleyes:

The sovereign citizen movement is composed of individuals who do believe that there are innumerble conspiracies, including one perpetuated by the crown of England over American attorneys. One can speak of a movement and define it by what its individual parts maintain without becoming a collectivist. Just as one can say that the "Austrian School" maintains that business cycles are exacerbated by government interference in the monetary supply...without being a collectivist. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: got it?

[John Taylor]

Yup, I have. I don't believe that they are relevant enough to argue about.

What IS relevant is the governments response. They will initiate violence.
Expect violence. People will die.
All over irrelevance.
:mad:

Yes, that is right, I agree with you completely.

[MelissaWV]

It's fascinating that such a terrible letter hasn't been released. It's not on their website, none othe governors' offices appear to have posted it, and even the FBI doesn't seem to want to provide quotes.

Another boogeyman.

Lots of people are getting threatening letters these days. "Pay your electric bill... OR ELSE!" and things along those lines. I think we should be able to beef up security. Who knows what they might be capable of?

Screening packages, more security personnel, a reaction to a peaceful letter that MIGHT inspire others to do harm. Goodness. If this is the reaction to a peaceful letter, what's the reaction to an actual, credible threat?

:(

[moostraks]

Malign? No one is maligning anyone, the facts speak for themselves, they really DO believe that the Queen of England is behind a massive conspiracy infilrating and controlling American court systems.

These people are precisely those who will destroy the freedom movement if they manage to associate themselves with it.

Name calling is an ineffective strategy at best. By bringing in the truthers issue all you are doing is trying to derail the thread by having truthers come to arms over derogatory comments.

If recent comments from you are indicative of your idea of a freedom movement count me out. Seems only those you feel qualified for your brand of rationalism need apply anyways...

[Erazmus]

The sovereign citizen movement is composed of individuals who do believe that there are innumerble conspiracies, including one perpetuated by the crown of England over American attorneys. One can speak of a movement and define it by what its individual parts maintain without becoming a collectivist. Just as one can say that the "Austrian School" maintains that business cycles are exacerbated by government interference in the monetary supply...without being a collectivist. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: got it?

Of course. But unlike you, I don't demonize people based on what they believe. I don't care if someone thinks the giant spaghetti monster is out there, so they arm themselves for it. As long as they don't initiate violence or violate anyone's rights, they can do what they want. To argue the counter is to say we should begin arresting people based on their belief structure.

Got it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[MelissaWV]

Yes, that is right, I agree with you completely.

That's what the thread was about. Not "who" wrote the letters, but the reaction to it, and the tone of the article. Earlier in the thread you said it was justified :rolleyes: Oh well; congratulations on sound logic for the moment.

[moostraks]

It's fascinating that such a terrible letter hasn't been released. It's not on their website, none othe governors' offices appear to have posted it, and even the FBI doesn't seem to want to provide quotes.

Another boogeyman.

Lots of people are getting threatening letters these days. "Pay your electric bill... OR ELSE!" and things along those lines. I think we should be able to beef up security. Who knows what they might be capable of?

Screening packages, more security personnel, a reaction to a peaceful letter that MIGHT inspire others to do harm. Goodness. If this is the reaction to a peaceful letter, what's the reaction to an actual, credible threat?

:(

I got one from a corporation calling itself the United States demanding I answer their questions or they will send someone to my home.:eek::p

[pcosmar]

John Taylor
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2010

Hmm.

Who do you work for "john" ?

[John Taylor]

That's what the thread was about. Not "who" wrote the letters, but the reaction to it, and the tone of the article. Earlier in the thread you said it was justified :rolleyes: Oh well; congratulations on sound logic for the moment.

It is perfectly justifiable for those who by law must protect the governor of one of the sovereign states to act by beefing up security when such letters were sent to 50 governors. That doesn't mean that violence shold be employed against those who sent them, just that, I believe their arguments to have no sound basis in logic or law.

[John Taylor]

Hmm.

Who do you work for "john" ?

Join Date: Jun 2007

Who do you work for pco?

[John Taylor]

I got one from a corporation calling itself the United States demanding I answer their questions or they will send someone to my home.:eek::p


Oh God, a corporation is nothing except a voluntary association of individuals joined together to limit liability to investment.

[tpreitzel]

Hmm.

Who do you work for "john" ?

;)

[pcosmar]

Join Date: Jun 2007

Who do you work for pco?

Self employed
Much personal information and pedigree posted, here and elsewhere.
:cool:

[John Taylor]

Self employed
Much personal information and pedigree posted, here and elsewhere.
:cool:

Cool, same here. I've been involved with Ron since 1995, how about yourself?

[moostraks]

Oh God, a corporation is nothing except a voluntary association of individuals joined together to limit liability to investment.

good grief sherlock...Someone spiked the tea at the party you went to in order to get the duly appointed Republicans in position for the takeover...

Why don't you go back to preaching constitutionality of government authority to remedy the ills of society. We see that is in high favor nowadays...

[tpreitzel]

Self employed
Much personal information and pedigree posted, here and elsewhere.
:cool:

Do you think he'll tell you the truth? ;)

[John Taylor]

good grief sherlock...Someone spiked the tea at the party you went to in order to get the duly appointed Republicans in position for the takeover...

Why don't you go back to preaching constitutionality of government authority to remedy the ills of society. We see that is in high favor nowadays...

Listen, you're more than welcome to go outside the bounds of the law to try to accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish, but if you call the tune you're going to have to pay the piper.

Calling the federal government a corporation, which it is not, is only going to reduce dramatically those to whom you could potentially spread the freedom philosophy.

[pcosmar]

Cool, same here. I've been involved with Ron since 1995, how about yourself?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1062/1422386259_f252866bfe.jpg

A while.
I am more concerned with immediate Violence and threatened violence from TPTB.
:(

[John Taylor]

Do you think he'll tell you the truth? ;)

With internet anonmyity, I would doubt it strongly.

[John Taylor]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1062/1422386259_f252866bfe.jpg

A while.
I am more concerned with immediate Violence and threatened violence from TPTB.
:(

I'm concerned about it as well, but I don't think one can be sending letters letting elected officials know they're about to be removed unless they resign in 3 days without expecting security to be beefed up. If you got that letter at your office, wouldn't you be much more likely to pack a piece for awhile? I would.

[moostraks]

Listen, you're more than welcome to go outside the bounds of the law to try to accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish, but if you call the tune you're going to have to pay the piper.

Calling the federal government a corporation, which it is not, is only going to reduce dramatically those to whom you could potentially spread the freedom philosophy.

yeah...you're doing a great job showing what an eloquent statesman you are....

[Erazmus]

I don't know about all of you, but I ALWAYS demonize people (and groups of people) who I disagree with, to spread the philosophy of freedom.

:D

[John Taylor]

yeah...you're doing a great job showing what an eloquent statesman you are....

You're certainly failing miserably.

I at least am trying.

[John Taylor]

I don't know about all of you, but I ALWAYS demonize people (and groups of people) who I disagree with, to spread the philosophy of freedom.

:D

non sequitor.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Oh God, a corporation is nothing except a voluntary association of individuals joined together to limit liability to investment.

Why would a form of government such as a Republic, which is not above the law, need limited liability?

[MelissaWV]

Somehow, this peaceful letter stuff made the news, but this didn't...


Authorities say 63-year-old Douglas Hoffman sent threatening letters to the governor's office in 2007. Hoffman's threats stem from a dispute he had with Pulte Homes, claiming the homebuilder victimized homeowners.

According to the arrest warrant, Hoffman's letter threatened "If no change comes soon, and soon means immediately, the militia has many options to rectify restitution to all Pulte victims." The warrant says Hoffman also mentioned using "IED methods" and threatened to "unleash (a) supply of chemical, biological, (and) nuclear mass destruction." The letter also tells the governor, "Don't <expletive> with us. Don't test us as we are for real and for real American justice, God and country."

The guy was just charged April 1 (yesterday).

Now THAT letter would inspire me to beef up security :eek:

Why mention that? Well, while they're amping up security elsewhere, this sentence jumps out at me:


Hoffman was arrested in Arizona without incident and is now out on bail. Nevada authorities are seeking to extradite him and charge him with felony counts of Making or Conveying False Information Concerning Acts of Terrorism. Hoffman is scheduled to appear at the Superior Court in Arizona on Wednesday, April 7.

So, to recap, peaceful letters warrant an AP story that's popping up all over the place... but actual threats of using IEDs and weapons of mass destruction gets you out on bail and barely a whisper.

Just thought it was an odd little thing.

[pcosmar]

I might be a good idea to remember history.
The Manufactured Menace from Michigan -- Take Two
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/04/manufactured-menace-from-michigan-take.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/S7PL8JsaxRI/AAAAAAAAGf8/h2AP6ou5oBw/s1600/piatek_home_militia.jpg

"That's it, baby -- strut! The camera loves you!" In a familiar bit of Homeland Security Theater, a law enforcement officer, his arms decorated with gangbanger-style tattoos, swaggers through a search of alleged Hutaree militia member Thomas Piatek's home in Hammond, Indiana.

Since this thread is getting views. ;)

[Romulus]

Hmm.

Who do you work for "john" ?

Exactly. ;)

[moostraks]

You're certainly failing miserably.

I at least am trying.

and therein lay the difference. I think you be a toady wittingly or not. So I see no need in playing nice with you especially with the methods that you preach.

[moostraks]

Why would a form of government such as a Republic, which is not above the law, need limited liability?

this should be interesting...

[John Taylor]

this should be interesting...

It doesn't. It has sovereign immunity.

[Erazmus]

non sequitor.

LOL! Non sequitur?


non sequitur:
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non+sequitur

So my logic doesn't follow? Ok...


You and I both know who these people are who are sending this type of letters. They are crazy, moon-bat, crazy. They make Marshall Applewhite look like Erasmus.


Now, you're more than free to join in with their mad dash to the sanitorum, but I don't think these tactics are going to bring people to the freedom philosophy.


Ad hominum? If anyone of you have actually met these guys, at gun shows or a political meeting, they make truthers look sane.

Everyone should demonize people. It's the fastest way to spread the freedom message. :D

[John Taylor]

Why would a form of government such as a Republic, which is not above the law, need limited liability?

It doesn't, it has sovereign immunity, going back to the English common law. The federal governemnt may only be sued for violations of constitutional rights arising under the U.S. Constitution, or through actions created by congressional statutes.

[John Taylor]

LOL! Non sequitur?



source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non+sequitur

So my logic doesn't follow? Ok...



Everyone should demonize people. It's the fastest way to spread the freedom message. :D

Your comment was indeed a non sequitor, and the people who maintain themselves as "sovereign citizens" are indeed living in a fantasy world. The Queen of England does not control attorneys in the United States...

[Erazmus]

Your comment was indeed a non sequitor, and the people who maintain themselves as "sovereign citizens" are indeed living in a fantasy world. The Queen of England does not control attorneys in the United States...

:) I don't think you get it... But that's ok. ;) If nothing else, things have cooled down a bit, and now we can all talk about things that really matter.

[Stary Hickory]

It's funny they are not even half as worried about violent acts committed against Americans by government for the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Sickening creeps

[pcosmar]

The Queen of England does not control attorneys in the United States...


It doesn't, it has sovereign immunity, going back to the English common law.
:eek:
:confused:
:(

circular reasoning.

[Erazmus]

It's funny they are not even half as worried about violent acts committed against Americans by government for the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Sickening creeps

Exactly!

[Erazmus]

:eek:
:confused:
:(

circular reasoning.

HEY! Non sequitur!!!!!! :cool:

[pcosmar]

HEY! Non sequitur!!!!!! :cool:

I have no formal education.
I hate wearing a tie. ;)

[fedup100]

Self employed
Much personal information and pedigree posted, here and elsewhere.
:cool:

Well O.K., but is his pedigree recognized by the kennel club?

[Erazmus]

I have no formal education.
I hate wearing a tie. ;)

:p

I learned more from books than I ever did in school or college. Mises.org is the greatest treasure ever! I don't wear a tie. :)

[pcosmar]

Well O.K., but is his pedigree recognized by the kennel club?
I haz a flavor.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3391188816_fed7708815.jpg

seems this thread was successfully derailed long back anyway.
:(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It doesn't, it has sovereign immunity, going back to the English common law. The federal governemnt may only be sued for violations of constitutional rights arising under the U.S. Constitution, or through actions created by congressional statutes.

Is the United States a lawful Republic or federal corporation with limited liability?



(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html


Does the concept of corporation date to English common law or Roman Law?



Blackstone, who ordinarily could find little to admire in Roman Law, event went so far give Roman lawyers the credit of inventing the corporate idea.

Page 277:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IRkMm73NCEUC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=roman+law+corporations&source=bl&ots=ChlDUrMcEX&sig=zeY7IcdcHMSSMCJqSXsmvblj9Wg&hl=en&ei=-za2S9eTD4WKlwfC-o12&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=roman%20law%20corporations&f=false

Is this sovereignty?



That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

[MelissaWV]

The derailing says a lot, in and of itself. At least it keeps it around.

I'm still hoping they release these letters that prompted scanners to be installed at Capitol building entrances and so on.

[Old Ducker]

You need a liscense to drive because you're driving on government roads. These people are nutsos.

Not so. You need a license to drive because you have a "certificate of title" issued by the state, not the actual title, which is called a Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin, that is issued by the manufacturer. Sovereign citizens, if they actually have gone through the legal hassles to achieve that status, are far from nuts.

Edit. I was referrring to registration, not a license. Since you don't need a license to drive on private property, I am in error. I do know that SS's do not have driver's licenses but I dont know (or dont remember) the legal foundation of that mandate.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Man I know the feds watch this site.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Man I know the feds watch this site.

Be right back... black van parked out front and some dudes with sunglasses and guns knocking at the door. :)

[pcosmar]

Man I know the feds watch this site.

Ya think
Gee.

Hai Guys. ;)

kiss here *

[jbuttell]

These people are acting like anarchists. They are seeking to remove the chief law enforcement officers of each sovereign state in this country.

Anarchist? Are you serious? They want to restore the Constitution to it's proper form, stripping the institutions that have unlawfully enslaved the people of this country, how is that anarchism? All you can claim is that they're doing this unlawfully, but without any specifics.

They claim to be using a legal process. Their 'enforcement' mechanism is the U.S. Military. From every bit of information I've heard and read, they will not be calling on any civilians to pick up arms and cause any violence. Where has petitioning them for redress and grievances gotten us?

It's probably another one of those things that'll fizzle out, but it's interesting to see SOMEONE trying something radical yet intentionally peaceful.

If I were one of these corrupt politicians, I wouldn't give them and inch. I'd lie through my teeth, say anything. I'd say they're anarchists, potentially violent and cause for alarm.

[MelissaWV]

Um... judging by the goings-on at LLS's post... it seems John's having some kind of epiphany or a bad day or a ban-wish or something.

Kudos for being able to keep up, though, because I can't type as fast as he, that's for sure o.O

[pcosmar]

Um... judging by the goings-on at LLS's post... it seems John's having some kind of epiphany or a bad day or a ban-wish or something.

Kudos for being able to keep up, though, because I can't type as fast as he, that's for sure o.O

:D
I saw that.
hence, my question. ;)

[jmdrake]

Utter imbecilic action. States are legally constituted, their officers hold constitutional authority, and they are sovereign. You need a liscense to drive because you're driving on government roads. These people are nutsos.

So why do you need a pilots license? The government didn't create the sky. Why do you need a broadcast license? The government neither made nor discovered the electromagnetic spectrum. Note I'm neither arguing for or against such things. Just pointing out that "government ownership" isn't always a factor. Also even if these people are "nutso" that doesn't mean they are violent.

[John Taylor]

Anarchist? Are you serious? They want to restore the Constitution to it's proper form, stripping the institutions that have unlawfully enslaved the people of this country, how is that anarchism? All you can claim is that they're doing this unlawfully, but without any specifics.

They claim to be using a legal process. Their 'enforcement' mechanism is the U.S. Military. From every bit of information I've heard and read, they will not be calling on any civilians to pick up arms and cause any violence. Where has petitioning them for redress and grievances gotten us?

It's probably another one of those things that'll fizzle out, but it's interesting to see SOMEONE trying something radical yet intentionally peaceful.

If I were one of these corrupt politicians, I wouldn't give them and inch. I'd lie through my teeth, say anything. I'd say they're anarchists, potentially violent and cause for alarm.

States hold general police powers, and may legislate over any and all matters not explicitly surrendered through the eneumeration of powers in the United States Constitutiton. The governors of the states are fulfilling their legal, constitutional duty under the state's constitution. Seeking to overthrow a legally constituted state government is treason against the state, and may be punished accordingly (see Dorrite Rebellion in RI). These people seek the (albiet peaceful) overthrow of the state governments. This is destructive to our system of federal republicanism.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Um... judging by the goings-on at LLS's post... it seems John's having some kind of epiphany or a bad day or a ban-wish or something.

Kudos for being able to keep up, though, because I can't type as fast as he, that's for sure o.O

Well one thing is clear.... intent. Obviously John's intent is selling a belief backed up with a threat of force regardless of the merits of the belief.

[John Taylor]

So why do you need a pilots license? The government didn't create the sky. Why do you need a broadcast license? The government neither made nor discovered the electromagnetic spectrum. Note I'm neither arguing for or against such things. Just pointing out that "government ownership" isn't always a factor. Also even if these people are "nutso" that doesn't mean they are violent.

I never said they were violent, I said that if someone sent me a letter like the one they received, I'd wear a .45 to my desk.

[MelissaWV]

:D
I saw that.
hence, my question. ;)

You should consider some different glasses sometimes ;) I think you'd look awesome in some sleek designer shades.

[MelissaWV]

I never said they were violent, I said that if someone sent me a letter like the one they received, I'd wear a .45 to my desk.

What text, specifically, would prompt that? Please quote the letter. I'm confused as to what has sparked your reaction.

[Gideon]

Well, asking them about something, or even petitioning them for a redress of grievances, that's fine and dandy, but if someone sent me a letter telling me I'd better be out of my offices in 3 days or I'd be removed, I'd carry my .45 to my desk with me. These governors, and the state police who protect them, are justifiably reacting.

I know you only from the posts on threads relating to this topic, but you are the only one screaming about what a bad idea this is.

You've made your point, so why don't you go start a new thread detailing your success in voting, petitions for redress and other activities.

I'm calling you out on this one JT, and I will tell you why:

I submitted my petition of redress to IRS in 2006, and now I have a $30,000 tax lien, after they cleaned out my account.

I began forming my own security company in order to provide discrete, armed escorts of precious metals, and in 2006, BATFE raided my primary supplier and confiscated $10,000 worth of gun parts for which I had already paid. All charges were eventually dropped, my supplier was financially devastated, and to quote the BATFE agent with whom I attempted to negotiate the release of my property, "You will never get them back."

In 2004, I literally put my money where my mouth is by heavily promoting the Liberty Dollar, which is another peaceful form of BoR Article 1 protest, and as a consequence, in 2007 I was raided by the FBI, who confiscated $70,000 FRNs worth of gold and silver from me, destroyed my local business credibility. I have yet to be charged with any crime related to this asset forfeiture.

I supported Ron Paul in his presidential campaign, and I watched in horror as the Republican Party slandered him, sequestered and squelched his delegates, and successfully marginalized his campaign in order to promote loser John McCain so that Prince Barry the Usurper could take the throne unchallenged. How's that Hyped Hope and Change working out for you so far JT?

I have friends in prison for non-crimes and thought crimes.

Ever heard of Sherry Jackson? David Olofson? Who infiltrated Hutaree?

Unless you have something positive to add to this thread, I really don't want to see anymore posts from you.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Like I said before: start your own thread and tell the world how beneficial the current system has become.

Please leave this thread to those who wish to continue peacefully protesting against tyranny, so that we can protect those who may fall victim to the FBI's latest violent war against peaceful expression of freedom.

The FBI is a Hollywood production, and perceptive manipulation is their primary weapon.

I am on high alert for Agents Provocateur, and I have very little patience for trolls, shills, informants and other tools of tyranny.

[jbuttell]

You and I both know who these people are who are sending this type of letters. They are crazy, moon-bat, crazy. They make Marshall Applewhite look like Erasmus.

crazy, moon-bat crazy, like Ron Paul?

[Danke]

One is a Sovereign. Not a Sovereign citizen. If you are a citizen, then you are not sovereign.


And a lot of people use public roadways without driver licenses. I know many.

[mczerone]

It doesn't, it has sovereign immunity, going back to the English common law. The federal governemnt may only be sued for violations of constitutional rights arising under the U.S. Constitution, or through actions created by congressional statutes.

I'm going to draw up a document, and steal money from you to fund my courts, and then say you can't sue me for anything that I didn't write in that document.

Then when you bitch, I'll say "but its constitutional".

Pointing at parchment doesn't address the ethics of the situation.

[Erazmus]

I know you only from the posts on threads relating to this topic, but you are the only one screaming about what a bad idea this is.

You've made your point, so why don't you go start a new thread detailing your success in voting, petitions for redress and other activities.

I'm calling you out on this one JT, and I will tell you why:

I submitted my petition of redress to IRS in 2006, and now I have a $30,000 tax lien, after they cleaned out my account.

I began forming my own security company in order to provide discrete, armed escorts of precious metals, and in 2006, BATFE raided my primary supplier and confiscated $10,000 worth of gun parts for which I had already paid. All charges were eventually dropped, my supplier was financially devastated, and to quote the BATFE agent with whom I attempted to negotiate the release of my property, "You will never get them back."

In 2004, I literally put my money where my mouth is by heavily promoting the Liberty Dollar, which is another peaceful form of BoR Article 1 protest, and as a consequence, in 2007 I was raided by the FBI, who confiscated $70,000 FRNs worth of gold and silver from me, destroyed my local business credibility. I have yet to be charged with any crime related to this asset forfeiture.

I supported Ron Paul in his presidential campaign, and I watched in horror as the Republican Party slandered him, sequestered and squelched his delegates, and successfully marginalized his campaign in order to promote loser John McCain so that Prince Barry the Usurper could take the throne unchallenged. How's that Hyped Hope and Change working out for you so far JT?

I have friends in prison for non-crimes and thought crimes.

Ever heard of Sherry Jackson? David Olofson? Who infiltrated Hutaree?

Unless you have something positive to add to this thread, I really don't want to see anymore posts from you.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Like I said before: start your own thread and tell the world how beneficial the current system has become.

Please leave this thread to those who wish to continue peacefully protesting against tyranny, so that we can protect those who may fall victim to the FBI's latest violent war against peaceful expression of freedom.

The FBI is a Hollywood production, and perceptive manipulation is their primary weapon.

I am on high alert for Agents Provocateur, and I have very little patience for trolls, shills, informants and other tools of tyranny.

Wow, Gideon. That Effing sucks!!!! Sorry you had to go through all that. :(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am on high alert for Agents Provocateur, and I have very little patience for trolls, shills, informants and other tools of tyranny.

They will work to pick off low hanging fruit but the only low hanging fruit on this forum is other trolls, shills, informants, or agent provocateurs. :)

[John Taylor]

I know you only from the posts on threads relating to this topic, but you are the only one screaming about what a bad idea this is.

You've made your point, so why don't you go start a new thread detailing your success in voting, petitions for redress and other activities.

I'm calling you out on this one JT, and I will tell you why:

I submitted my petition of redress to IRS in 2006, and now I have a $30,000 tax lien, after they cleaned out my account.

I began forming my own security company in order to provide discrete, armed escorts of precious metals, and in 2006, BATFE raided my primary supplier and confiscated $10,000 worth of gun parts for which I had already paid. All charges were eventually dropped, my supplier was financially devastated, and to quote the BATFE agent with whom I attempted to negotiate the release of my property, "You will never get them back."

In 2004, I literally put my money where my mouth is by heavily promoting the Liberty Dollar, which is another peaceful form of BoR Article 1 protest, and as a consequence, in 2007 I was raided by the FBI, who confiscated $70,000 FRNs worth of gold and silver from me, destroyed my local business credibility. I have yet to be charged with any crime related to this asset forfeiture.

I supported Ron Paul in his presidential campaign, and I watched in horror as the Republican Party slandered him, sequestered and squelched his delegates, and successfully marginalized his campaign in order to promote loser John McCain so that Prince Barry the Usurper could take the throne unchallenged. How's that Hyped Hope and Change working out for you so far JT?

I have friends in prison for non-crimes and thought crimes.

Ever heard of Sherry Jackson? David Olofson? Who infiltrated Hutaree?

Unless you have something positive to add to this thread, I really don't want to see anymore posts from you.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Like I said before: start your own thread and tell the world how beneficial the current system has become.

Please leave this thread to those who wish to continue peacefully protesting against tyranny, so that we can protect those who may fall victim to the FBI's latest violent war against peaceful expression of freedom.

The FBI is a Hollywood production, and perceptive manipulation is their primary weapon.

I am on high alert for Agents Provocateur, and I have very little patience for trolls, shills, informants and other tools of tyranny.


Everything you have said only conclusively demonstrates the veracity of my position: this is a losing argument, and if you press it, you are going to come out on the painful end of a jail door.

[mczerone]

I know you only from the posts on threads relating to this topic, but you are the only one screaming about what a bad idea this is.

You've made your point, so why don't you go start a new thread detailing your success in voting, petitions for redress and other activities.

I'm calling you out on this one JT, and I will tell you why:

I submitted my petition of redress to IRS in 2006, and now I have a $30,000 tax lien, after they cleaned out my account.

I began forming my own security company in order to provide discrete, armed escorts of precious metals, and in 2006, BATFE raided my primary supplier and confiscated $10,000 worth of gun parts for which I had already paid. All charges were eventually dropped, my supplier was financially devastated, and to quote the BATFE agent with whom I attempted to negotiate the release of my property, "You will never get them back."

In 2004, I literally put my money where my mouth is by heavily promoting the Liberty Dollar, which is another peaceful form of BoR Article 1 protest, and as a consequence, in 2007 I was raided by the FBI, who confiscated $70,000 FRNs worth of gold and silver from me, destroyed my local business credibility. I have yet to be charged with any crime related to this asset forfeiture.

I supported Ron Paul in his presidential campaign, and I watched in horror as the Republican Party slandered him, sequestered and squelched his delegates, and successfully marginalized his campaign in order to promote loser John McCain so that Prince Barry the Usurper could take the throne unchallenged. How's that Hyped Hope and Change working out for you so far JT?

I have friends in prison for non-crimes and thought crimes.

Ever heard of Sherry Jackson? David Olofson? Who infiltrated Hutaree?

Unless you have something positive to add to this thread, I really don't want to see anymore posts from you.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Like I said before: start your own thread and tell the world how beneficial the current system has become.

Please leave this thread to those who wish to continue peacefully protesting against tyranny, so that we can protect those who may fall victim to the FBI's latest violent war against peaceful expression of freedom.

The FBI is a Hollywood production, and perceptive manipulation is their primary weapon.

I am on high alert for Agents Provocateur, and I have very little patience for trolls, shills, informants and other tools of tyranny.

QFT.

When the system is what's broken, how is working within the system going to fix anything? When we accuse the system of using unjustified violence, how is violence going to promote change?

[John Taylor]

One is a Sovereign. Not a Sovereign citizen. If you are a citizen, then you are not sovereign.


And a lot of people use public roadways without driver licenses. I know many.

Sure, and they're going to be arrested and found guilty when they are caught, and will have to, like dear Gideon here, fork over a huge quantity of money to the government. I'm simply saying, there are ways to avoid this inevitable consequence of refusing to obey the law.

[John Taylor]

I'm going to draw up a document, and steal money from you to fund my courts, and then say you can't sue me for anything that I didn't write in that document.

Then when you bitch, I'll say "but its constitutional".

Pointing at parchment doesn't address the ethics of the situation.

This is fine and dandy, but don't use this argument in court.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is fine and dandy, but don't use this argument in court.

Courts work for sovereigns not vice versa.

[John Taylor]

Courts work for sovereigns not vice versa.

Ok pal. I'm telling you, the states are legally constituted, and all the babblery of "sovereign" citizens in their card-board liscense-plate factories won't save those who break the law from paying the penalties for breaking it.

[Erazmus]

Sure, and they're going to be arrested and found guilty when they are caught, and will have to, like dear Gideon here, fork over a huge quantity of money to the government. I'm simply saying, there are ways to avoid this inevitable consequence of refusing to obey the law.

What a provocative thing to say…

[MelissaWV]

I'm fairly sure my name isn't "Missy," by the way, and I don't think that other poster is your "Buddy."

[John Taylor]

I'm fairly sure my name isn't "Missy," by the way, and I don't think that other poster is your "Buddy."

Aren't you the same woman I don't remember seeing at the WV State convention?

[jbuttell]

The derailing says a lot, in and of itself. At least it keeps it around.

I'm still hoping they release these letters that prompted scanners to be installed at Capitol building entrances and so on.


They will, according to the recordings that were posted in the other related thread, they will release the declarations sent to the Governors soon, as in once they're all served. From what I heard on another recording last night, they all have been served at this point so it should be posted soon.

[John Taylor]

What a provocative thing to say…

Not provacative, it's a fact. That doesn't mean I agree with him being penalized, I don't. I'm just saying, if you break the law, you're going to get nailed to the barn door.

[Danke]

Sure, and they're going to be arrested and found guilty when they are caught, and will have to, like dear Gideon here, fork over a huge quantity of money to the government. I'm simply saying, there are ways to avoid this inevitable consequence of refusing to obey the law.

Caught? Many have been pulled over. And some have been arrested, usually for not understanding how to properly deal with a stop. But the knowledgeable ones go on their merry way.

[Erazmus]

Not provacative, it's a fact. That doesn't mean I agree with him being penalized, I don't. I'm just saying, if you break the law, you're going to get nailed to the barn door.

Are you implying that all law is just?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ok pal. I'm telling you, the states are legally constituted and obligated as lawful Republics, and all the babblery of sovereigns exercising their natural right to travel will not affect "citizens" in their card-board liscense-plate factories who break the law from paying the penalties for breaking it.

Fixed.

Feel free to answer the previous questions posed anytime...

[John Taylor]

They will, according to the recordings that were posted in the other related thread, they will release the declarations sent to the Governors soon, as in once they're all served. From what I heard on another recording last night, they all have been served at this point so it should be posted soon.

OOoook.

Governors are the highest elected constitutional officers of their states. They are sworn to uphold their state's constitution, and to defend their state. I'm very interested in seeing the legal argument for overthrowing all of these constitutional officers.

[MelissaWV]

Aren't you the same woman I don't remember seeing at the WV State convention?

You need your eyes checked, then. What county were you with? :) Where were you on the Huckabee/Romney split? Were you one of the ones loudly protesting that Romney would drop out if he didn't win WV, and that would make it too easy for one of the others to win, so we should shift our support to Romney and help him out? Or were you one of the ones saying Huckabee wouldn't keep his word and put up the pledged delegates he wanted?

Or were you one of the ones that walked out when Dr. Paul fell off the options after the first round of voting? If you were there, at least you weren't one of the few that got elected as an elector, then didn't show up to the Convention. Kudos on that part.

As for me, I was taking part, helping broadcast for Ron Paul Radio, and then went out with Pendragon (who gave the opening speech for Dr. Paul at the convention) afterwards.

Where were you?

[John Taylor]

Are you implying that all law is just?

No, but we should make it as just as possible.

[pcosmar]

Are you implying that all law is just?

Nope.
He is implying that your Constitutional rights are irrelevant.
:(

[John Taylor]

Caught? Many have been pulled over. And some have been arrested, usually for not understanding how to properly deal with a stop. But the knowledgeable ones go on their merry way.

That is not true, and it is disingenious to teach people to drive without a liscense, they WILL be arrested if they do not have a liscense.

[John Taylor]

Nope.
He is implying that your Constitutional rights are irrelevant.
:(

No, constitutional rights are relevant. Which ones are being violated?

[Erazmus]

No, but we should make it as just as possible.

Elaborate on "just as possible" please. Either something is just, or it is not. This is Grecian logic.

[John Taylor]

Elaborate on "just as possible" please. Either something is just, or it is not. This is Grecian logic.

Laws should conform to the twin fundamental maxims of the old common law as much as possible to 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) to not encroach on other persons or their property.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Nope.
He is implying that your natural rights and Constitutional guarantees of a lawful Republic are irrelevant.
:(

Fixed.

[Erazmus]

Laws should conform to the twin fundamental maxims of the old common law as much as possible to 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) to not encroach on other persons or their property.

Ok, using your line of reasoning. What do YOU do, when the government does not maintain what, in your position, would be just?

[Danke]

That is not true, and it is disingenious to teach people to drive without a liscense, they WILL be arrested if they do not have a liscense.

You have been on quatloose too long.

A lot of people even give notice to the State what they are doing.

[John Taylor]

You have been on quatloose too long.

A lot of people even give notice to the State what they are doing.

Give "notice to the state"? That my friend is an example of using antiquated legalese which will get you nowhere fast... such actions ended with the rise of statuary law. In fact, those writs were ended in the late 18th century, so you're a bit behind the times!

[John Taylor]

Ok, using your line of reasoning. What do YOU do, when the government does not maintain what, in your position, would be just?

You seek to change the government to one more fitting to your rights.

If you seek to ignore the law, and try to drive around with cardboard liscense plates, you're going to have to pay the fine, because you're breaking the law, period.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Give "notice to the state"? That my friend is an example of using antiquated legalese which will get you nowhere fast... such actions ended with the rise of statuary law. In fact, those writs were ended in the late 18th century, so you're a bit behind the times!

Are you suggesting if someone sends a citizen a notice to pay something they have no cause of action in a court if the citizen does not respond?

[Erazmus]

You seek to change the government to one more fitting to your rights.

If you seek to ignore the law, and try to drive around with cardboard liscense plates, you're going to have to pay the fine, because you're breaking the law, period.

So, is it your position to obey ALL laws, even unjust (in your view) laws?

[John Taylor]

So, is it your position to obey ALL laws, even unjust (in your view) laws?

Not at all, but if you willingly break the law, it's possible you'll be caught and will be punished.

[moostraks]

You seek to change the government to one more fitting to your rights.

If you seek to ignore the law, and try to drive around with cardboard liscense plates, you're going to have to pay the fine, because you're breaking the law, period.

They unilaterally make laws and demand obedience and then threaten violence when you refuse to comply. But this is okay because we can address our grievances at the ballot box which has admitted to being easily hacked? Or join one of the two parties that control the system inflicted upon us even though they refuse to acknowledge our platform???

[John Taylor]

Are you suggesting if someone sends a citizen a notice to pay something they have no cause of action in a court if the citizen does not respond?

What? This doesn't make sense.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are you suggesting if a corporate officer presents a notice to a citizen the citizen does not have to worry about responding?

[Erazmus]

Not at all, but if you willingly break the law, it's possible you'll be caught and will be punished.

So you are condoning the breaking of law. Even if the law is unjust, you are still saying you would not obey. Correct?

[John Taylor]

They unilaterally make laws and demand obedience and then threaten violence when you refuse to comply. But this is okay because we can address our grievances at the ballot box which has admitted to being easily hacked? Or join one of the two parties that control the system inflicted upon us even though they refuse to acknowledge our platform???

This is how it works. Using decrepid legal arguments (sovereign citizen arguments) will only exacerbate the matter. instead of hiring an attorney who will use actual law, these people try to go all pro se, and end up, predictably, shafted.

[jbuttell]

States hold general police powers, and may legislate over any and all matters not explicitly surrendered through the eneumeration of powers in the United States Constitutiton. The governors of the states are fulfilling their legal, constitutional duty under the state's constitution. Seeking to overthrow a legally constituted state government is treason against the state, and may be punished accordingly (see Dorrite Rebellion in RI). These people seek the (albiet peaceful) overthrow of the state governments. This is destructive to our system of federal republicanism.

Perhaps it's destructive, but what we have is broken. You're claiming that what they're doing is illegal and you could be right. I do believe that those in power will say whatever they need to stay in power. What you say is lawful is no different than Obama or members of congress claiming that the new Health Bill is perfectly Constitutional. If these people have found a way to use the law in our favor, to restore the Constitution legally and without violence, more power to them.

I'm not so certain as you that the Governors are fulfilling their duty if they're complicit with a system that, for example enables income tax, Massachusetts mandatory health care and 2nd amendment violations.

[Danke]

Give "notice to the state"? That my friend is an example of using antiquated legalese which will get you nowhere fast... such actions ended with the rise of statuary law. In fact, those writs were ended in the late 18th century, so you're a bit behind the times!

Maybe. But it is working for a lot of people alive today.

[John Taylor]

Are you suggesting if a corporate officer presents a notice to a citizen the citizen does not have to worry about responding?

Of course that person doesn't, a private enterprise, unless granted the legal authority by the state or federal government, lacks the ability to compel. This is far different from a situation where the government places an individual on notice about something though.

[John Taylor]

So you are condoning the breaking of law. Even if the law is unjust, you are still saying you would not obey. Correct?

You break it, be prepared to pay the consequences.

[Anti Federalist]

By bringing in the truthers issue all you are doing is trying to derail the thread by having truthers come to arms over derogatory comments.


LoL....I didn't take the bait;)

[tpreitzel]

Not at all, but if you willingly break the law, it's possible you'll be caught and will be punished.

Including those politicians in power who've usurped power illegally, i.e. unconstitutionally. At this point in America's slow slide into fascism, I don't believe many of us really give a damn about your dire warnings of "breaking the law" as most of the law, at least on the federal level, is blatantly against the law, i.e. the US Constitution. Frankly, it's high time for a purge of unchallenged "legal precedent".

[John Taylor]

Maybe. But it is working for a lot of people alive today.

I've seen a lot of them, and they talk about their court dates and how they've been in some law library shaped like a ship (hence proving that the Queen of England is usurping justice in the United States), working on drafting a response to an indictment based on the Uniform Commercial Code, even though that is a federal statute and they are in civil municipal court for a traffic violation.... yeah, it's really working.

[Erazmus]

You break it, be prepared to pay the consequences.

That's not what I asked. In your own words you said you would not obey all unjust laws. So are you condoning the breaking of law? Even if it is unjust law, it is still the law. Correct?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Of course that person doesn't, a private enterprise, unless granted the legal authority by the state or federal government, lacks the ability to compel. This is far different from a situation where the government places an individual on notice about something though.

How about answering the questions previously posed....

You are playing with word semantics.

Then we can get into the legal precedence of failure to respond which you are making absurd arguments about how something becomes a fact.

[John Taylor]

That's not what I asked. In your own words you said you would not obey all unjust laws. So are you condoning the breaking of law? Even if it is unjust law, it is still the law. Correct?

Condoning? No, I won't urge or incite anyone to break any law. Nice try though!!!:rolleyes: I think individuals need to weigh the relative cost of burdensome laws against the possible consequences of not abiding by them.

[John Taylor]

How about answering the questions previously posed....

You are playing with word semantics.

Then we can get into the legal precedence of failure to respond which you are making absurd arguments about how something becomes a fact.

Private enterprises (absent grant) lack the coercive power necessary to compel an individual... (with the exception of things like "replevin" and other legal remedies which a private individual or business can file with a local sheriff and court).

[Erazmus]

Condoning? No, I won't urge or incite anyone to break any law. Nice try though!!!:rolleyes: I think individuals need to weigh the relative cost of burdensome laws against the possible consequences of not abiding by them.


Condone: to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone

By the above definition (not meaning to incite, but to disregard), I pose the same question, rephrased. So are you telling me, that you would purposely break the law, being that it is unjust in your view -and not the governments view?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Private enterprises (absent grant) lack the coercive power necessary to compel an individual... (with the exception of things like "replevin" and other legal remedies which a private individual or business can file with a local sheriff and court).

Is the United States a lawful Republic or Federal corporation with limited liability?



(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html


Does the concept of corporation date to English common law or Roman Law?



Blackstone, who ordinarily could find little to admire in Roman Law, event went so far give Roman lawyers the credit of inventing the corporate idea.

Page 277:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IRkMm73NCEUC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=roman+law+corporations&source=bl&ots=ChlDUrMcEX&sig=zeY7IcdcHMSSMCJqSXsmvblj9Wg&hl=en&ei=-za2S9eTD4WKlwfC-o12&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=roman%20law%20corporations&f=false

Is this sovereignty?



That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

[moostraks]

This is how it works. Using decrepid legal arguments (sovereign citizen arguments) will only exacerbate the matter. instead of hiring an attorney who will use actual law, these people try to go all pro se, and end up, predictably, shafted.

Okay, so using your argument then the wealthy or those likewise affiliated with an adept attorney can attempt to circumvent the law but the rest must accept the shackles of the tyranny of government?

[John Taylor]

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone

By the above definition (not meaning to incite, but to disregard), I pose the same question, rephrased. So are you telling me, that you would purposely break the law, being that it is unjust in your view -and not the governments view?

Depending on the severity of the law (the degree of un-justness implicit in it), I would definitely consider breaking it.

No government ever thinks their own law is unjust! They always think that what they are doing is constitutional and the best thing forward... that's why precedent is so dangerous to limited government.

[lx43]

From the OP it sounds like the govt is getting afraid of the people.

[Anti Federalist]

Everything you have said only conclusively demonstrates the veracity of my position: this is a losing argument, and if you press it, you are going to come out on the painful end of a jail door.

Henry David Thoreau was jailed once, for failure to pay a "poll tax".

He did this as an active act of civil disobedience.

His friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, was summoned to bail him out of jail.

Emerson was said to have remarked, upon seeing his friend in a "gaol" cell:

"What are you doing in there?"

Thoreau shot back: "What are you doing out there?"

Snap out of it, we're all thought criminals, we're all on the way to jail, unless we turn this around, and no one gets out of here alive in the end of it all.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

http://www.quatloos.com/blog/images/QBanner.png

Let me guess... the framing of your all your legal arguments is going to be people exercising their natural rights and freedoms under a constitutionally guaranteed Republic are pirates?

[John Taylor]

Is the United States a lawful Republic or Federal corporation with limited liability?



Does the concept of corporation date to English common law or Roman Law?



Is this sovereignty?

The United States is a federal Republic. No statute can abrogate Article V of the U.S. Constitution, nor the supremacy clause.

The corporation is simply an association of individuals joined together to limit their liability to the amount they invest. It's a method of pooling resources to develop capital, that's all!

[John Taylor]

http://www.quatloos.com/blog/images/QBanner.png

Let me guess... the framing of your all your legal arguments is going to be people exercising their natural rights and freedoms under a constitutionally guaranteed Republic are pirates?

Oh yeah, big bad pirates!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The United States is a federal Republic. No statute can abrogate Article V of the U.S. Constitution, nor the supremacy clause.

The corporation is simply an association of individuals joined together to limit their liability to the amount they invest. It's a method of pooling resources to develop capital, that's all!

So why does United States code define the United States as a corporation not a Federal Republic?

Or are you suggesting we can disregard most of what is in the code (statues)?

[Erazmus]

Depending on the severity of the law (the degree of un-justness implicit in it), I would definitely consider breaking it.

No government ever thinks their own law is unjust! They always think that what they are doing is constitutional and the best thing forward... that's why precedent is so dangerous to limited government.

Based on your open acceptance to break the law (albeit being an unjust one from your view), you should be arrested right now for thought crime. You have admitted to knowingly and purposefully saying that you would break a law. A quote of yours from earlier in this thread supports this.


I didn't say the letters were violent, I said, I think the response was appropriate.

The letters in question were not a breaking of any laws, but were potential "intent." You've expressed potential intent on breaking a law. Should you be arrested now?

[fedup100]

Everything you have said only conclusively demonstrates the veracity of my position: this is a losing argument, and if you press it, you are going to come out on the painful end of a jail door.

Are you threatening the good people on this forum?

[Pericles]

Everything the Nazis did to the Jews from 1935 to 1945 was perfectly legal under German law at the time. Ultimately, everyone has to make von Stauffenberg's choice - is there a point at which the law you serve force you to abrogate your duty to obey the law.

[Erazmus]

Everything the Nazis did to the Jews from 1935 to 1945 was perfectly legal under German law at the time. Ultimately, everyone has to make von Stauffenberg's choice - is there a point at which the law you serve force you to abrogate your duty to obey the law.

BAH!!!! You weren't supposed to bring that up yet. I was working in that direction. :p

[John Taylor]

Based on your open acceptance to break the law (albeit being an unjust one from your view), you should be arrested right now for thought crime. You have admitted to knowingly and purposefully saying that you would break a law. A quote of yours from earlier in this thread supports this.



The letters in question were not a breaking of any laws, but were potential "intent." You've expressed potential intent on breaking a law. Should you be arrested now?

My open acceptance to break the law? What law have I said I would break? What forum? What jurisdiction? What country?

Show me the statute that makes thoughts criminal. Even in civil and criminal conspiracy cases, there must be a meeting of the minds between individuals to constitute a conspiracy.

What I found troubling is that people sent a letter with a deadline to constitutionally elected governors demanding their resignation or stating in the alternative, that if they decline to do so, even Butch Otter in Idaho and Mark Sanford (and presumably Gary Johnson had he still been in office, or Debra Medina had she been governor of Texas), they would be "removed". That is why I stated that this type of action is counter-productive, and that if I got a letter like that, I'd beef up my personal security detail as well (a nickel .45 with hollow-points).

[Pericles]

BAH!!!! You weren't supposed to bring that up yet. I was working in that direction. :p
Sorry, but it was taking all damn day to read this thread.:D

[John Taylor]

Everything the Nazis did to the Jews from 1935 to 1945 was perfectly legal under German law at the time. Ultimately, everyone has to make von Stauffenberg's choice - is there a point at which the law you serve force you to abrogate your duty to obey the law.

Of course there is, that is what I am saying. There is a point where every individual reaches a breaking point, and will no longer comply. Where that is for you, ask yourself. I am simply saying that for me, getting a liscense plate is not a hill to die on.

[John Taylor]

Are you threatening the good people on this forum?

No, I'm saying, if you bring a "sovereign citizen" argument to court with you, you're going to lose.

[buddaroll]

The point isn't whether or not the people are justified or intelligent or even sane. The point is that now writing letters that contain no threats of violence is bothering the FBI, and reason to beef up security. Asking anything of your Government is becoming an offense and a threat.


I haven't read all of the way through this thread, but have been following this for a bit elsewhere.

I admit, I rarely post here and although I did not sign up until last January, I have been a lurker since before the Pres. Election.

That being said, there is a lot more information out there that you do not have here.

I do not have enough info or legal expertise to be able to make an opinion either way, but I can share what I find.

Here is their page: http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html

Their Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeAmericaPlan

There is also info on Godlikeproductions.com
Abovetopsecret.com
and

nesaranews.blogspot.com/

I am trying to find a copy of the letters themselves from the original source, but am not having much luck.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, I'm saying, if you bring a "sovereign citizen" argument to court with you, you're going to lose.

As previously pointed out there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The very phrase is a contradiction.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property?

[John Taylor]

I haven't read all of the way through this thread, but have been following this for a bit elsewhere.

I admit, I rarely post here and although I did not sign up until last January, I have been a lurker since before the Pres. Election.

That being said, there is a lot more information out there that you do not have here.

I do not have enough info or legal expertise to be able to make an opinion either way, but I can share what I find.

Here is their page: http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html

Their Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeAmericaPlan

There is also info on Godlikeproductions.com
Abovetopsecret.com
and

nesaranews.blogspot.com/

I am trying to find a copy of the letters themselves from the original source, but am not having much luck.


I would not recommend getting close to those people.

[John Taylor]

As previously pointed out there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The very phrase is a contradiction.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property?

Sure, Willard v. Filburn, 1942.

[fedup100]

As previously pointed out there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The very phrase is a contradiction.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property?

I have put this JT loser on ignore, never before put anyone there. Please, people, try to stay on topic regarding this letter and what the good people are trying to do.

Ignore this bastard by not responding to him/it.

[John Taylor]

As previously pointed out there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The very phrase is a contradiction.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property?

The income tax amendment allows the federal government to lay taxes on income, and cases like Willard v. Filburn state that activity which impacts the economy may be taxed, regulated, or prohibited.

[John Taylor]

I have put this JT loser on ignore, never before put anyone there. Please, people, try to stay on topic regarding this letter and what the good people are trying to do.

Ignore this bastard by not responding to him/it.

The letter cannot be discussed without a thorough discussion of the individual sovereignty movement, beliefs, ideology, and goals. That's why we're having this friendly little chat.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I have put this JT loser on ignore, never before put anyone there. Please, people, try to stay on topic regarding this letter and what the good people are trying to do.

Ignore this bastard by not responding to him/it.

Contrary to JT's notion people are not compelled to respond it is absurd to suggest failure to respond establishes anything but a fact.

[John Taylor]

Contrary to JT's notion people are not compelled to respond it is absurd to suggest failure to respond establishes anything but a fact.

Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, you either have 20 or 30 days in which to respond, before the private person or enterprise opposing you can file for default judgment against you. Once they do that, if you don't have it removed, they can file a lien against your property, in any state, and get their award.

[John Taylor]

Contrary to JT's notion people are not compelled to respond it is absurd to suggest failure to respond establishes anything but a fact.

But the states do not operate as private individuals. They hold sovereign general police powers, and they do have the power to compel your presence. They have two great little tools, contempt and warrants.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

But the states do not operate as private individuals. They hold sovereign general police powers, and they do have the power to compel your presence. They have two great little tools, contempt and warrants.

Under a Republic the people are sovereign and government only enjoys expressly delegated power.

With regards to the case you cited:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)



The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated.

In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm [317 U.S. 111, 115] marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all. The appellee has not paid the penalty and he has not postponed or avoided it by storing the excess under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or by delivering it up to the Secretary. The Committee, therefore, refused him a marketing card, which was, under the terms of Regulations promulgated by the Secretary, necessary to protect a buyer from liability to the penalty and upon its protecting lien.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111


You did not present the citation requested. You presented a case about a citizen who applied for privileges under the Agricultural Ajustment Act of 1938.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property such as dollars or federal reserve notes?

or...

Please cite a published case (which is a whole irony in itself) where there was a cause of action not related to a government privilege.

[Danke]

The income tax amendment allows the federal government to lay taxes on income...

The thread is really getting off topic, but the 16A did not allow the feds to lay taxes on income, they had this power since 1787.

[Erazmus]

The thread is really getting off topic, but the 16A did not allow the feds to lay taxes on income, they had this power since 1787.

Agreed. The thread is pretty much lost as far as I'm concerned. The guy is all over the place. The double-speak is pretty hard to keep up with.

[torchbearer]

There seems to be a theme (pushed by the government) I can't help think that several events (and accusations) are related.
:(

it is almost like they are building up to something. they are laying the back story for their next false flag.

[devil21]

What a bizarre thread this turned into.

Sig updated. I should have done it the other day. The authority-lovers are starting to show themselves more and more.

[pcosmar]

it is almost like they are building up to something. they are laying the back story for their next false flag.

And that is a good attempt to get the thread back on track.
Which was,
The threat of Government violence over a non violent action to correct abuse.
:cool:

[Kade]

This was reported on MSNBC as anything but non-violent, including the "seriousness" of the threat to remove.

I can't emphasize enough how stupid those letters were.

[jkr]

If you stay on private property, you should be free to drive as you damned well please. The states have the constitutional power to require that people driving on their roads meet certain specifications. You meet them, you are liscensed, it isn't difficult.

dude, who's side are you on?:eek:

[pcosmar]

dude, who's side are you on?:eek:

The State.
:(

[Kade]

Just posted this on another thread... relevant here.

The media is no longer calling the letters "non-violent"

YouTube - Governors threatened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csFMI2iE0B4)

[fedup100]

KADE, you are lying. This piece says not one word about a violent threat. You spread this shit on the other thread too, why?

[Kade]

KADE, you are lying. This piece says not one word about a violent threat. You spread this shit on the other thread too, why?

It is implying... are you so dense to not even see twisting when it sits in front of you?

By simply using words like "threatened" or "remove" and "or else"... implies violence....

Not to mention omitting the report of non-violence is itself a tactic to control the information towards one outcome.

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.quatloos.com/blog/images/QBanner.png

Let me guess... the framing of your all your legal arguments is going to be people exercising their natural rights and freedoms under a constitutionally guaranteed Republic are pirates?

LoL, I knew what quatloos were without having to look it up.:D

[fedup100]

It is implying... are you so dense to not even see twisting when it sits in front of you?

By simply using words like "threatened" or "remove" and "or else"... implies violence....

Not to mention omitting the report of non-violence is itself a tactic to control the information towards one outcome.

Oh, sorry Kade, yes you are correct. This group is non threatening, in fact they are extremely peaceful. The media on the other hand is spinning it in the other direction, yes, I concur.

[fedup100]

Quatloos is a government run machine sort of like wikipedia. It is in place to make sure none of the grass grazers hear the truth about anything that could loosen tptb strangle hold.

[MelissaWV]

I haven't read all of the way through this thread, but have been following this for a bit elsewhere.

...

I am trying to find a copy of the letters themselves from the original source, but am not having much luck.

I've read their website and relevant material. My goal was to find a copy of the letter, or at least direct and relevant quotes (even if they were likely to be out of context). I haven't been able to. Neither has John Taylor, I am guessing, because I asked him to please quote to me what part of the letter has him so riled up. He has not responded that I'm aware of.

* * *

My favorite part of this thread is the part where John Taylor brought up, once again, that he doesn't "remember me" from the WV GOP Convention in 2008. When it became apparent that I had, and I asked who he was and who he was with there (so I might jog my memory about him), he got silent and went on to the next topic. Fancy that. I don't even know how he figures he "didn't see me" there. He didn't see me anywhere. There are maybe four people on these forums who know what I look like... and he isn't one of them :p

[tpreitzel]

dude, who's side are you on?:eek:

Examining JT's posting history might be instructive, i.e. the times of his/her posts. Currently, we're nearing the close of business for commercial and governmental entities in the US. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Quatloos is a government run machine sort of like wikipedia. It is in place to make sure none of the grass grazers hear the truth about anything that could loosen tptb strangle hold.

I don't doubt it, but I haven't read the site, I was referring to the term "quatloos".

A unit of currency used in the Star Trek episode "Gamesters of Triskilion".

The multi colored talking brains wagered bets on fights denominated in "quatloos".

Nerd trivia..never mind me...carry on.:D

[pcosmar]

Examining JT's posting history might be instructive, i.e. the times of his/her posts. Currently, we're nearing the close of business for commercial and governmental entities in the US. ;)

Well his posts just today (argumentative as they were) significantly boosted the post count on his short history.
And from his stated positions I wonder why he is here. :rolleyes:

[fedup100]

Examining JT's posting history might be instructive, i.e. the times of his/her posts. Currently, we're nearing the close of business for commercial and governmental entities in the US. ;)

Wish I was smart enough to get this. :o

[Erazmus]

My favorite part of this thread is the part where John Taylor brought up, once again, that he doesn't "remember me" from the WV GOP Convention in 2008.

Yeah, that was pretty random.

[puppetmaster]

I've read their website and relevant material. My goal was to find a copy of the letter, or at least direct and relevant quotes (even if they were likely to be out of context). I haven't been able to. Neither has John Taylor, I am guessing, because I asked him to please quote to me what part of the letter has him so riled up. He has not responded that I'm aware of.

* * *

My favorite part of this thread is the part where John Taylor brought up, once again, that he doesn't "remember me" from the WV GOP Convention in 2008. When it became apparent that I had, and I asked who he was and who he was with there (so I might jog my memory about him), he got silent and went on to the next topic. Fancy that. I don't even know how he figures he "didn't see me" there. He didn't see me anywhere. There are maybe four people on these forums who know what I look like... and he isn't one of them :p


off topic a bit but I hope you look like your current avatar....:p
just cheering up the viewers!

[Mach]

You obviously have no idea what they are trying to do. They are NOT anarchists. They are trying to get rid of the de facto government and replace it with the de jure government.

I sense a sock puppet at work, new, prolific member...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon14.gif


As far as the governments response to the supposed letters, yes, it is just public affairs propaganda, using their MSM to flood the people with a nice general fear.

"...they establish a trail that you are meant to follow but it's a trail that gives you false sponsorship for the event.... you spend more time on that false sponsorship than you do on the event itself."


~

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, that was pretty random.

He does remind me of someone I met there, so I'm fairly curious if it's him. If it is, I will die laughing. However, JT never tells me who he was :( It's so disappointing.

[puppetmaster]

He does remind me of someone I met there, so I'm fairly curious if it's him. If it is, I will die laughing. However, JT never tells me who he was :( It's so disappointing.



I have to say I the media has become quite shrill in its covering in this story....I sense a bit of nervousness.

[tpreitzel]

Wish I was smart enough to get this. :o

Easy. A simple, imperfect process to differentiate between an individual patriot or an individual allied with either a commercial or governmental agency in the US.

[jkr]

Easy. A simple, imperfect process to differentiate between an individual patriot or an individual allied with either a commercial or governmental agency in the US.

wrong! it means he should get off the internets and get back to saying "do you want hot sauce with that"

I kid i kid

[tpreitzel]

wrong! it means he should get off the internets and get back to saying "do you want hot sauce with that"

I kid i kid

Always a possibility which is why I added "imperfect". ;)

[John Taylor]

The State.
:(

Nonsense, I favor the individual, freely acting according to his own rational self-interest.

[MelissaWV]

Proof positive someone is watching these forums...

[John Taylor]

Under a Republic the people are sovereign and government only enjoys expressly delegated power.

With regards to the case you cited:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)



You did not present the citation requested. You presented a case about a citizen who applied for privileges under the Agricultural Ajustment Act of 1938.

Since you have suggested we can disregard unconstitutional statues can you direct me to a court ruling that says people pay IRS taxes because they facilitate trade using federal corporation property such as dollars or federal reserve notes?

or...

Please cite a published case (which is a whole irony in itself) where there was a cause of action not related to a government privilege.

I never said you should disregard unconstitutional statutes, I said, if you do disregard them, you had better be ready to pay the piper when he comes calling. Courts don't get into that issue, that's an issue to be resolved in the legislature. The purpose of courts is not to say what the law should be, but rather, what it is.

Government privilege? What? They have sovereign immunity, and may not be sued, but this has been common-law for over a thousand years.

[John Taylor]

Proof positive someone is watching these forums...

I hope so, otherwise I've been discussing issues with computer bots.

[John Taylor]

KADE, you are lying. This piece says not one word about a violent threat. You spread this shit on the other thread too, why?

He's obviously a traitor troll.

[buddaroll]

For me, the jury is out on the intent on this unless we know the content of the letters sent to the Governors as well as the procedural notices served to the SCOTUS and the military yesterday as well.


My largest concern here is the amount of secrecy involved regarding the actually content of the documents. They have been served, and it is obvious they have been received.

These two statements on their twitter concern me:



If the truth gets out too soon it could create massive civil unrest if some believed the government was in trouble and losing control.
about 20 hours ago via Echofon


Coordinators issue caution on making hasty financial decisions until the plan becomes a binding fact on each progressive stage.
3:03 AM Apr 1st via Echofon

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, you either have 20 or 30 days in which to respond, before the private person or enterprise opposing you can file for default judgment against you. Once they do that, if you don't have it removed, they can file a lien against your property, in any state, and get their award.

So there we have it in JT's own words. In summary, power lies with those who provide notice. Power does not lie with those who respond to notices. That is the peaceful remedy in a Republic. That is the fundamental legal concept at work here. The contents of the notice must be lawful to obtain remedy but that is a different matter.


LoL, I knew what quatloos were without having to look it up.:D

Why doesn't it surprise me you picked up on that :)

[John Taylor]

So there we have it in JT's own words. In summary, power lies with those who provide notice. Power does not lie with those who respond to notices. That is the peaceful remedy in a Republic.

That is the fundamental legal concept at work here. The contents of the notice must be lawful to obtain remedy but that is a different matter. Someone posted about studying the thread might be useful and JT's words were carefully chosen.



Why doesn't it surprise me you picked up on that :)

Power resides in the people, and is delegated by them, through their state constitutions, to the states. From the states, part of this sovereign power is delegated through eneumerations to the federal government through our U.S. Constitution.

States have sovereign immunity, both under the 11th Amendment, and under the old common law. They have always had sovereign immunity. The federal government may only be sued when acting in violation of the U.S. Constitution by someone with actual damages with standing.

[fedup100]

For me, the jury is out on the intent on this unless we know the content of the letters sent to the Governors as well as the procedural notices served to the SCOTUS and the military yesterday as well.


My largest concern here is the amount of secrecy involved regarding the actually content of the documents. They have been served, and it is obvious they have been received.

These two statements on their twitter concern me:

I agree we con only surmise at this time. If they had documents that they could use to demonize, wouldn't they have already splashed it all over the media? Big sis and her tits and serious butch look would already be in action.

Since they don't have that, it would appear they have in their possession a writing that would so invigorate the 90% of the pissed off public, they cannot chance letting them ever see it.

We were told by a member of this organization that the organization will be releasing the document shortly.

get the pop corn ready!:D

[tpreitzel]

My largest concern here is the amount of secrecy involved regarding the actually content of the documents. They have been served, and it is obvious they have been received.


Yes.

[John Taylor]

For me, the jury is out on the intent on this unless we know the content of the letters sent to the Governors as well as the procedural notices served to the SCOTUS and the military yesterday as well.


My largest concern here is the amount of secrecy involved regarding the actually content of the documents. They have been served, and it is obvious they have been received.

These two statements on their twitter concern me:

So what they're talking about is the dissolution of the states? ANARCHY!!!!!!!!

[John Taylor]

Yes.

If you guys think a document is going to dissolve the states, you're sadly mistaken. This is much ado about nothing, regardless of the potential merits of these "served documents".

[pcosmar]

Power resides in the people,


"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse Tung

I believe that Mao was correct in this.
:(

[fedup100]

This ignore thingy is the coolest thing since sliced bread. No wonder no one ever responds to my posts.

I really suggest you all try it on on JT, it is a real hoot.

[tpreitzel]

If you guys think a document is going to dissolve the states, you're sadly mistaken. This is much ado about nothing, regardless of the potential merits of these "served documents".

We all appreciate your assurances, JT, that this effort is merely "much ado about nothing". Maybe, maybe not. Apparently, the government doesn't agree with you. ;) Time has a way of verifying truth. ;)

[John Taylor]

I believe that Mao was correct in this.
:(

That is how most of history has gone, that's true, but it doesn't have to be that way.

My disagreement with you is that I don't see any legal merit to your arguments. I don't think even the most conservative, solid constitutitonalist judge would agree with the reasoning in them. Even Judge Napolitano wouldn't agree with you. That's why I'm saying, don't go driving around with a cardboard liscenseplate, you'll only end up with a conviction and a black-mark nxt to your name. There's no point in feeding the government your money. Just minimize yourself, don't stand out, spread the philosophy of individual liberty, and live your life.

That's where I stand.

[John Taylor]

We all appreciate your assurances, JT, that this effort is merely "much ado about nothing". Maybe, maybe not. Apparently, the government doesn't agree with you. ;) Time has a way of verifying truth. ;)

We will see. Come back on here in a month and talk to me about how the sovereign states were disolved and how the federal union ended, all because of a letter filled with out of context quotes from the uniform commerical code... but I don't think it'll happen!!! Prove me wrong!

[Travlyr]

So what they're talking about is the dissolution of the states? ANARCHY!!!!!!!!

The hope is to dissolve the states incorporations, and reinstate constitutional republics... nothing to do with ANARCHY!!!!!

[catdd]

This ignore thingy is the coolest thing since sliced bread. No wonder no one ever responds to my posts


:D

[John Taylor]

The hope is to dissolve the states incorporations, and reinstate constitutional republics... nothing to do with ANARCHY!!!!!

Dissolve the state's incorporations? Corporations are legal entities created when organizations file articles of incorporation with the secretary of state in a state. States are constitutional republics, opperating under their constitutional charters, within the federal union. Getting rid of some status you may have "uncovered" will do nothing to change what the states are.

[tpreitzel]

We will see. Come back on here in a month and talk to me about how the sovereign states were disolved and how the federal union ended, all because of a letter filled with out of context quotes from the uniform commerical code... but I don't think it'll happen!!! Prove me wrong!

You're confused. It's not up to ME to prove you're wrong as time will either prove you wrong or not. Personally, I've never contended the "sovereign states" would be dissolved in this manner. I've simply contended that the effort isn't necessarily "much ado about nothing". Time will be the arbiter of the correctness of this process, not you or I.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I never said you should disregard unconstitutional statutes, I said, if you do disregard them, you had better be ready to pay the piper when he comes calling. Courts don't get into that issue, that's an issue to be resolved in the legislature. The purpose of courts is not to say what the law should be, but rather, what it is.

Government privilege? What? They have sovereign immunity, and may not be sued, but this has been common-law for over a thousand years.

Say what? You absolutely did say that. Let us review exactly what you stated:


The United States is a federal Republic. No statute can abrogate Article V of the U.S. Constitution, nor the supremacy clause.

The corporation is simply an association of individuals joined together to limit their liability to the amount they invest. It's a method of pooling resources to develop capital, that's all!

You explicitly stated no statue can abrogate the constitution. Or are you just saying no statue can abrogate the parts of the constitution you like but can abrogate other parts.

You acknowledged the United States is a Republic which is something completely different than a Corporation. A Republic does not enjoy absolute sovereignty. It never has. You are trying to introduce a new legal definition to the concept of a Republic that contradicts centuries of history.

Let's introduce some constitutional legal definitions the founding fathers understood when they drafted the document since many of them were pretty damn familiar with English Law:



SOVEREIGN. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q. v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.

2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.

REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government.

COMMONWEALTH, government. A commonwealth is properly a free state, or republic, having a popular or representative government. The term has been, applied to the government of Great Britain. It is not applicable to absolute governments. The states composing the United States are, properly, so many commonwealths.

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person.

Public corporations, which are also called political, and sometimes municipal corporations, are those which have for their object the government of 'a portion of the state

FEDERAL, government. This term is commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states.

ABROGATION, in the civil law, legislation. The destruction or annulling of a former law, by an act of the legislative power, or by usage. A law may be abrogated or only derogated from; it is abrogated when it is totally annulled; it is derogated from when only a part is abrogated: derogatur legi, cum pars detrahitur; abrogatur legi, cum prorsus tollitur. Dig lib.. 50, t. 17, 1, 102. Lex rogatur dum fertur; abrogatur dum tollitur; derogatur eidem dum quoddam ejus caput aboletuer; subrogatur dum aliquid ei adjicitur; abrogatur denique, quoties aliquid in ea mutatur. Dupin, Proleg. Juris, Art. iv.

2. Abrogation is express or implied; it is express when it, is literally pronounced by the new law, either in general terms, as when a final clause abrogates or repeals all laws contrary to the provisions of the new one, or in particular terms, as when it abrogates certain preceding laws which are named.

3. Abrogation is implied when the new law contains provisions which are positively, contrary to the former laws, without expressly abrogating such laws: for it is a posteriora derogant prioribus. 3 N. S. 190; 10 M. R. 172. 560. It is also implied when the order of things for which the law had been made no longer exists, and hence the motives which had caused its enactment have ceased to operate; ratione legis omnino cessante cessat lex. Toullier, Droit Civil Francais, tit. prel. 11, n. 151. Merlin, mot Abrogation.

[Travlyr]

Dissolve the state's incorporations? Corporations are legal entities created when organizations file articles of incorporation with the secretary of state in a state. States are constitutional republics, opperating under their constitutional charters, within the federal union. Getting rid of some status you may have "uncovered" will do nothing to change what the states are.

John Taylor. In your opinion, has the federal government and the states been operating under the authority of their constitutions, or outside the authority of their constitutions?

[John Taylor]

You're confused. It's not up to ME to prove you're wrong as time will either prove you wrong or not. Personally, I've never contended the "sovereign states" would be dissolved in this manner. I've simply contended that the effort isn't necessarily "much ado about nothing". Time will be the arbiter of the correctness of this process, not you or I.

Well we do agree on something afterall.

I think all this is going to do is enable our opposition in both the Republican Party and on the left to attempt to smear those of us active in attempting to restore principles of constitutional government and laissez faire to the society as being kooks and wackos. I understand that this has been blown out of purportion, and that these people are likely high school educated, well-meaning but not necessarily informed individuals. All I know is that if someone told me I had three days to quit my job, or I'd be removed, and it was signed, some "army of god", I'd be looking over my shoulder---so I understand why various state troopers/police are taking extra precautions (especially in light of say, oh... the Texas governor's mansion being destroyed by arson)... and other acts.

[John Taylor]

Say what? You absolutely did say that. Let us review exactly what you stated:



You explicitly stated no statue can abrogate the constitution. Or are you just saying no statue can abrogate the parts of the constitution you like but can abrogate other parts.

You acknowledged the United States is a Republic which is something completely different than a Corporation. A Republic does not enjoy absolute sovereignty. It never has. You are trying to introduce a new legal definition to the concept of a Republic that contradicts centuries of history.

Let's introduce some constitutional legal definitions the founding fathers understood when they drafted the document since many of them were pretty damn familiar with English Law:

I'm relatively familiar with common law myself.

No statute can trump the U.S. Constitution, that is true. Merely because it cannot however doesn't mean that an unconstitutional law won't be enforced. No government at any time actually thinks their laws are unconstitutional!!!! And...sometimes the courts agree with them at the time.

I never said the federal government has absolute sovereignty. I said, the individuals, the people, hold residual sovereignty, and they grant that, through their state constitutions, as organic charters, to the states, which then in turn, delegate some of that power to the federal government.

[tpreitzel]

Well we do agree on something afterall.

I think all this is going to do is enable our opposition in both the Republican Party and on the left to attempt to smear those of us active in attempting to restore principles of constitutional government and laissez faire to the society as being kooks and wackos. I understand that this has been blown out of purportion, and that these people are likely high school educated, well-meaning but not necessarily informed individuals. All I know is that if someone told me I had three days to quit my job, or I'd be removed, and it was signed, some "army of god", I'd be looking over my shoulder---so I understand why various state troopers/police are taking extra precautions (especially in light of say, oh... the Texas governor's mansion being destroyed by arson)... and other acts.

You're entitled to your opinion, JT. Personally, I don't feel threatened in the slightest by your strident efforts to silence this initiative. However, I'm fully skeptical of anyone working overtime ;) to do so. Don't fret over the thoughts of others. You have NO control over those efforts anyway. You only become suspect by your strident efforts to silence those efforts in the name of something "good", i.e. squelching an initiative which allegedly provides ammunition for our enemies.

[John Taylor]

You're entitled to your opinion, JT. Personally, I don't feel threatened in the slightest by your strident efforts to silence this initiative. However, I'm fully skeptical of anyone working overtime ;) to do so. Don't fret over the thoughts of others. You have NO control over those efforts anyway and you only be suspect by your strident efforts to silence those efforts in the name of something "good", i.e. allegedy providing ammunition for our enemies.

I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm glad you don't feel threatened, because I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just stating what will happen if your pursue this line of argument.

If someone wants to drive around in a car with cardboard liscense plates arguing about whether the Queen of England is in a cabal with America's attorneys, who sell their souls to the Queen when they take the bar exam... and spend hours learning about the Uniform Commercial Code, that's their affair, but remember my words now, none of that will avail them at all. It will not save them when they are pulled over, and will only possibly qualify them for an insanity defense if they react in "self-defense" to a lawful traffic stop by some kid with an associates-degree and a badge who is just enforcing the law and trying to get home to his wife and kids... then it comes out that this cardboard liscense plate guy is a Ron Paul backer, and the whole media frenzy begins anew.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm relatively familiar with common law myself. No statute can trump the U.S. Constitution, that is true. Merely because it cannot however doesn't mean that an unconstitutional law won't be enforced. No government at any time actually thinks their laws are unconstitutional!!!! And...sometimes the courts agree with them at the time.

I never said the federal government has absolute sovereignty. I said, the individuals, the people, hold residual sovereignty, and they grant that, through their state constitutions, as organic charters, to the states, which then in turn, delegate some of that power to the federal government.

Organic charters :rolleyes:

I am quite certain you are referring to something other than a built in amendment process. How about explaining to the rest of us what an organic charter is?

If we are going to get downright technical the Constitution abrogated the Articles of Confederation and the lawful process required the approval of every state.



Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

[pcosmar]

I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm glad you don't feel threatened, because I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just stating what will happen if your pursue this line of argument.

.

I personally don't think the effort is going anywhere.
But it is apparent that TPTB are concerned.

That does concern me.
They have a bad habit of reacting violently.

Eyes and ears open.