Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

BigSkip
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:14 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5451

Post by BigSkip » Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:27 am

neeneko wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:56 pm
RoadScholar wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:40 pm
With any luck the "Liberals are arming themselves" meme will have a deterrent effect.

That's right, bitches. Many of us can shoot back. :twisted:
This is how you can tell that while they enjoy the drama, the right doesn't actually believe itself.

If they actually thought the left was arming and an actual potential danger to them, they would be a lot more conciliatory. Kinda like how the US delt with Iraq vs North Korea.. there were arguments about who had WMDs, but you could kinda tell by where the US was willing to use force and where it was not, who actually did and did not.

When someone is an existential threat you puff up and talk about how dangerous they are. When they actually are dangerous you watch your tongue.
I am not sure if that holds in this situation. Based on the right wing/prepper fiction I have read from time to time, they seem to believe they out class the "left" so badly it doesn't matter if the other side is armed.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5452

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:12 am

BigSkip wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:27 am
:snippity:
I am not sure if that holds in this situation. Based on the right wing/prepper fiction I have read from time to time, they seem to believe they out class the "left" so badly it doesn't matter if the other side is armed.
People with "beware of the bogeyman" theories have the great advantage of inconsistency. That's why anti-immigration people in any country can tell you that (a) immigrants are lazy and workshy so should be excluded because they don't contribute to the host society, and (b) immigrants work too hard so should be excluded because they take too many jobs from the host society.

I'm sure these nutters can simultaneously believe that (a) they must arm against the evil secret army of ruthless liberals, and (b) - as you suggest - those liberals are so weak and pathetic that they can be crushed with ease.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5453

Post by RoadScholar » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:21 am

I don’t know... surely they must have noticed that when they demonstrate, if they have 100 people the crowd opposing them has 1000.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

Siegfried Shrink
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5454

Post by Siegfried Shrink » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:26 am

To save dragging this divided US thing out any further, would it be possible to collect up all the hardline right people on one side of a fairly boring state somewhere in the middle, like Iowa, for example, and all the hardline left people on the other side of the state, plant a big flag in the middle and, after evacuating all the people who are really not all that bothered one way or another, let the heavily armed protaganists fight it out for the flag, last man standing of whatever side to be given a small pension and a one way ticket to Uzbeckistan.

Once all the bodies had been disposed of, and the property damage repaired, the country could settle down to a period of peace and prosperity managed and occupied by the rest of the population comprising people who are capable of compromise.

It does seem impractical to have a really good civil war while all the factions are living mixed together, so some sort of geographical polarisation needs to be arranged.

Detroit seems a bit surplus to requirements at the moment, how about a great TV show where the city is wired up with cameras everywhere and declared a 'show-down city' where left and right can come to fight!!!.
Thursday Night at 8, Constitutionalist Militias V. Social Justice Warriors, a no holds barred throw-down sponsored by Smith And Wesson Hollow Point, the ammunition of choice for political debate!

I agree a little more preparatory work needs to be done, but that's what we have minions for.



User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5455

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:47 pm

Somebody's having a clear spell again. Ron Vrooman, another angry old man yelling at clouds, is back only a couple weeks after posting a delicious screed trying to enlist others to prosecute people for pretend treason in unnamed pretend courts. Vrooman is so busy frothing at the mouth that he doesn't even name who he intends to go after or what they did that's so pretend-treasonous; he just wants to rampage around and see what happens.

Vrooman's back only two weeks later with another letter written by an aged crank, posted at the odd "Scanned Retina" site run by fellow octogenarian crank Arnie Rosner.

Apparently, Mr. Vrooman is discovering the hard way that claiming sovereign status as a non-citizen of the US is making it difficult for him to renew a passport he got back in his unenlightened days when he was content to be a US citizen.

His threats are undoubtedly causing whatever passport clerk received his letter to be quaking in her boots. Right up front, Vrooman says "COPIES WILL BE SENT TO MANY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OFFICES." I'm not sure if he's talking about the "corporate" (i.e., the real) government or about big companies. Somehow, I don't know that sending this dreck to Exxon and Citibank will spur them to intervene.

A lot of the document is the usual SovCit nonsense, including the idea that an unrebutted document must be true. But there are a couple fairly funny bits:

On why he's not a garden variety US citizen any more:
I discovered the fraud and I am taking all the bastards to court. The Portland court cannot provide an Article III court. I moved my cases to district court DC.
According to PACER, Vrooman filed about 10 cases in 2017 including judges involved in his multiple bankruptcies (2001 and 2010) in Oregon federal court, and got clobbered with a vexatious litigant order as a result. He tried to file a case in DC but it was shut down instantly as well.
You will comply with your Constitutional oath and provide me with a passport as an Oregonian, a born national man with bloodlines from the Revolution, as a direct descendant from a Father and Son they fought for New York. Bloodline landed on America 1664; from the several states.
Sounds like royalty addressing a commoner. And it sure sounds to me like the stuff about how long his family has been here in the country is a pretty un-subtle assertion of white privilege.
Should you choose to ignore my lawful demand? I will obtain your name and make you a defendant in a due process claim 18 USC 3571. This will necessitate the same action against the known and public chain of command to and including the Secretary. Clearfield Doctrine.
Yeah, that'll work, especially since you have achieved vexatious litigant status in the 9th Circuit, which rules the federal courts in Oregon, where you live.
POTUS: Donald J. Trump the President of the United States of America, President of the united states the Inc, holder of office of the President, decreed me sovereign. While that is true, I am also a beneficiary of the founding documents. A man on Oregon that wishes a valid passport required by State for any one of the people from one of the several states. In our Constitutional Republic.
Yeah, I remember that executive order. One of a flurry that Trump signed that particular day. Gut environmental regulations, check. Block Muslims from entering the US, check. Issue corrupt contracts to rebuild Puerto Rico, check. Make Ronald Vrooman a legally-recognized "sovereign," check.

There's a whole long denial that the 14th amendment is valid, as a justification for why he gets a passport as a non-US citizen. Vrooman then closes with a recap of why he's a special snowflake. Apparently, he's not only a private attorney general but several other imaginary statuses involving super powers that should make passport clerks move him to the head of the line.
For your information: Ronald Charles Vrooman Private Attorney Generals by the United States Congress 42 U.S.C.1988 and18 U.S.C.1510 and 18 U.S.C. 1512 and to be known as “One of the People” also “Qualified Criminal Investigator” and “Federal Witness” and by unrebutted affidavit. Status identified and unrebutted.
What a sad, senile old man.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5456

Post by Northland10 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:26 pm

If the US Government is a corporate fiction and not a county with citizens anymore, why does he want a passport from a corporation?


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8593
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5457

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:02 pm

Definitely and an old man shouting at clouds, a genuine cranky loon. I'll bet he doesn't even get along with the voices in his head.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5458

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:45 pm

Looks like a friend of decrepit, senescent cloud-shouter Ron Vrooman wants to get in on the act. Here's a guy named Charles Stewart who is trying to convene a bi-weekly conference call of like-minded poots to set up his own version of a pretend court system. This one's called the "Supreme Court of Law" and it's at http://www.constitutionalgov.us.

The source document is here: https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.c ... people.pdf. The English usage is quaint, and the use of underlines, quotation marks and 18th century-style capitalization is quite overwhelming. Apparently, Mr. Stewart hasn't mastered fonts the way John Darash/Vidurek of National Liberty Alliance has.

Some of the nuggets in this one:
Of large concern here, is that, this author, as chief organizer of these conferences, has become frustrated with the reality that our conferences are not making meaningful & tangible progress towards our stated goals; & here-under, we need to devote more time/energy to engineering documents & strategy, so that when we do convene, we will have a more clearly defined program for achieving our stated goals.
In other words, "What's wrong with all of you people who aren't listening to me?"
We also must develop a clear program for addressing the personal economic-burdens of all of our activists, including this author.
In other words, "send money." You would think that the best way for handfuls of suckers around the country to send money would be PayPal. But you would be wrong. Stewart has a better idea:
In even further & much-needed pursuit of all of the above concerns; this Pro-Tem Judicial-Officer, Charles Stewart, seeks to guide discussions with-in Our Court, as opportunity allows, towards, development of our collective Resolution for a Plan for Producing 'Streams of Economic Support' for our numerous 'Front-Line Warriors', who are Risking their Lives by producing Cutting-Edge Work in Bringing About a Paradigm-Shift towards 'Fully Accountable Government'.In the views of this author, Charles Stewart, this sort of "Economic Support" can best be completed thru similar process as that employed in the marketing/selling of the commercial instruments known as "Municipal Bonds"; but rather they would be more properly known as "Common-Law Bonds".

This author has composed rough-drafts of documents explaining detail of how such a concept might be brought to life; but, final form for those documents has never materialized. The cutting edge work of "Hartford Van Dyke" is related here-to.

http://constitutionalgov.us/Archive/Cha ... ndraising/
I'm sure the SEC and any of the 50 state securities regulators would be quite interested to hear more about their plans to issue bonds without registering them, should any of this come to pass.

A Mr. David Schied from Michigan takes up quite a bit of the agenda. He's only been mentioned here once. Apparently, he was hired as a teacher in Michigan and then fired when a background check revealed a felony conviction in Texas he failed to disclose. His poot legal theories availed him naught, so he went down the rabbit hole and continues to spew forth legal nonsense to those few willing to listen.

Of late, Schied is all hot and bothered about the installation of Smart Meters, which sends detailed data about electrical usage throughout the day to utilities. Ultimately, utilities hope to motivate people to use less electricity at peak times of day by charging more per kilowatt at those times. While this may be useful for motivating people to charge their Tesla's at 3:00 am, studies suggest most people won't change their behavior. While there are legitimate security concerns, a lot of poots think this is some sort of UN-mandated Agenda 21 takeover or even tantamount to "Mark of the Beast" type tagging a la implanted RFID chips. They're going to discuss the best type of pretend legal documents to get the utilities to stop this.

Apparently, Stewart and Schied have been feeling the heat from skeptics who doubt their pretend court has real power. So there's an agenda item to settle that once and for all.
The more intellectually-challenging of these Two Accusations, is, that, Allegedly, Our Court does "Not have Lawful-Authority" to proceed to "Final Judgement" in this manner; & David Schied; my-self, Charles Stewart; & a growing number of others freely choosing to join in our efforts, we are all quite mentally & spiritually prepared to Defend against that specific Accusation, & we will be available to do precisely that, if & when any people in attendance wish to raise this issue here-in.



User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2198
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5459

Post by mmmirele » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:14 pm

Jared Fogle, yes that Jared Fogle (of Subway fame) goes full sovereign citizen.



Here's a Dropbox link to an "amicus" brief I have not had the time to read. It's by a fellow prisoner.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tkpa3if3kvmq ... s.pdf?dl=0

You should never go full sovereign citizen, especially if you pleaded guilty.



User avatar
GlimDropper
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:35 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5460

Post by GlimDropper » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:56 pm

Mmmm, that doesn't look sovcit to me.

First just a quick note on why Frank Edwin Pate, the guy who wrote that brief, is in jail.

I have no idea where the case law sits on the issue but Frank and presumably Jared are not really arguing that Jared shouldn't be in prison, they're clear on that point but they are arguing that he shouldn't be in federal prison. They argue that Jared's interstate travel was for Subway related purposes and the fact that he engaged in illicit sexual conduct while in a state other than the one he resides in while doing so was more or less incidental to the reason for his travel and therefore he didn't commit a federal crime, he should have stood trial in the state(s) he was in when he engaged in illicit behavior.

Again, I have no idea if the argument has merit but this isn't a sovcit gold fringed thumb print type thing.



User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2198
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5461

Post by mmmirele » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:55 pm

I'm going to disagree because he's challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction. And his argument is stupid, to boot.



User avatar
GlimDropper
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:35 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5462

Post by GlimDropper » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:26 pm

Don't get me wrong, I in no way am claiming they're making a good argument, I'm only saying they aren't making a sovcit argument.

They are challenging subject matter jurisdiction but they aren't challenging it on the basis of tortured and disproven interpretations of Article 1, Section 8 Clause 17, or irrational to irrelevant ideas about the 14th Amendment or even self serving stupidity about laws being contracts. They are, in my own poor paraphrase, arguing that Jared Fogel's interstate travel for commercial purposes was only incidental to his interstate travel for illicit sexual purposes and therefor while he was in fact breaking laws, he was not breaking federal laws.

I can not assess the merits of their argument but while my gut tells me it will go no where I do not know specifically why. Back to my point, while I fully expect this to be (yet another) dead end pro se filing I do not see this as a sovcit style argument.



User avatar
Whip
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5463

Post by Whip » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:38 pm

GlimDropper wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:26 pm
Don't get me wrong, I in no way am claiming they're making a good argument, I'm only saying they aren't making a sovcit argument.

They are challenging subject matter jurisdiction but they aren't challenging it on the basis of tortured and disproven interpretations of Article 1, Section 8 Clause 17, or irrational to irrelevant ideas about the 14th Amendment or even self serving stupidity about laws being contracts. They are, in my own poor paraphrase, arguing that Jared Fogel's interstate travel for commercial purposes was only incidental to his interstate travel for illicit sexual purposes and therefor while he was in fact breaking laws, he was not breaking federal laws.

I can not assess the merits of their argument but while my gut tells me it will go no where I do not know specifically why. Back to my point, while I fully expect this to be (yet another) dead end pro se filing I do not see this as a sovcit style argument.
it is an interesting argument. if it can be proven the business travel occurred before the thought of the crime, I would think it would have to be considered. Problem is creating that timeline.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 24529
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ (Rawly NC)
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5464

Post by Foggy » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:56 am

If he wasn't guilty he shouldn't have pled guilty.


If dogs run free, why not we?

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5465

Post by neeneko » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:39 am

Foggy wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:56 am
If he wasn't guilty he shouldn't have pled guilty.
Heh, now wouldn't that be part of a perfect world?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8017
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5466

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:42 pm

Some sovcit filed something or another in the PACER class action. The court's ordered it returned to sender, but it's available. I can't really be bothered trying to completely decipher it, but it does have lots of footnotes.

https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/Do ... USN_72.pdf


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40914
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5467

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:43 pm

Foggy wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:56 am
If he wasn't guilty he shouldn't have pled guilty.
:explode:

Pleaded!



Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5468

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:56 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:42 pm
Some sovcit filed something or another in the PACER class action. The court's ordered it returned to sender, but it's available. I can't really be bothered trying to completely decipher it, but it does have lots of footnotes.

https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/Do ... USN_72.pdf
Come on Mike! Can't you apreciate brilliant legal reasoning when you see it? :rotflmao:

This one outdoes Heather Ann Tucci-Jaraff for total lack of clarity.



nancydrew
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:33 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5469

Post by nancydrew » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:36 pm

mmmirele wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:14 pm
Jared Fogle, yes that Jared Fogle (of Subway fame) goes full sovereign citizen.



Here's a Dropbox link to an "amicus" brief I have not had the time to read. It's by a fellow prisoner.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tkpa3if3kvmq ... s.pdf?dl=0

You should never go full sovereign citizen, especially if you pleaded guilty.
I guess the sex was a fringe benefit of the traveling?



nancydrew
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:33 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5470

Post by nancydrew » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:46 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:56 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:42 pm
Some sovcit filed something or another in the PACER class action. The court's ordered it returned to sender, but it's available. I can't really be bothered trying to completely decipher it, but it does have lots of footnotes.

https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/Do ... USN_72.pdf
Come on Mike! Can't you apreciate brilliant legal reasoning when you see it? :rotflmao:

This one outdoes Heather Ann Tucci-Jaraff for total lack of clarity.
I had to stop reading it when I realized it was 90 pages long.



Lansdowne
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:00 am

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5471

Post by Lansdowne » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:38 am

Go to page 67 "AFFIRMATION" you get an idea of the subject matter. Something to do with a family trust being fraudulently administered is my best guess. Seems to have been in court since 1999.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 13006
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5472

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:39 am

Double fail in court...




User avatar
arayder
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5473

Post by arayder » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:50 am

RTH10260 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:39 am
Double fail in court...

This is thing happen right here in my home town of Louisville. She ended up getting convicted.

I was struck by the screaming and yelling during which the two fake being hurt.



voxpopuluxe
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:18 pm

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5474

Post by voxpopuluxe » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:26 am

I guess the sex was a fringe benefit of the traveling?
Something like that ...


"Nazi pants fuck off!"

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Sovereign Citizens and Related Nutz

#5475

Post by Fortinbras » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:55 pm

arayder wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:50 am
RTH10260 wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:39 am
Double fail in court...

This is thing happen right here in my home town of Louisville. She ended up getting convicted.
The judge would be within his authority to declare, since the first defendant adamantly refused to come into the cockpit of the court (also called "the well of the court"), that she had failed to appear altogether, notwithstanding her shouting from the far side of the room. As she had already been present at arraignment, the trial or hearing could go forward in her absence (such as it was) and could end with a conviction, essentially by default. And the resulting sentence would be valid and probably upheld on appeal, since the defendant by her own volition refused to come forward.



Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”