quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're a liar. you know as well as I do that the document demanded that the governors do a bunch of crap that isn't at all related to an oath to the Constitution, you even posted the list upthread . As a matter of fact most of the things they demand are simply unconstitutional legally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I said at the outset minnesota swears the fucking thing. Wake the fuck up, it is the rest of the 50 states form and content we are talking about.

State by state. And no, we will not assume that every state requires an oath to the federal constitution.

Google your ignorant ass off, I know minnesotas constitution, and the state officers are in violation of nothing regarding that. There is no (nor has there ever been) any dissention on my side regarding minnesota law, nor the fact that it is a state by state form and context whether they swear an oath or not, and how it is sworn, by signature or by speaking.

Obviously it is hard for you, because you keep shoving the minnesota law at me for what reason I dont know. There are 49 other states at issue here.

Insofar as our state is concerned, we are within our law, and the federal law. I dont know about the other 49 states, but I know these retarded fucksticks posing as whatever serving these papers are as full of shit as a christmas goose and as divorced from reality as michael jackson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Yup.  There goes the name-calling again.

If it's such a pain to keep educating the 'tards, then go away.  Surely you must be tired of shooting fish in a barrel.  You have other websites to educate, do you not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




Do you or do you not support the laws of this country in that these guys have no authority to hold a public office in the public trust without swearing or affirming the oath to the constitution?

Simple question.

Show me this law. I can only think of article 2 section 1 clause 8 offhand, in our constitution, as concerns the prez. (and there is an oath of allegiance required for aliens matriculating to citizenship.) It could be that it is customary or traditional for all other federal officers, but I don't see it as mandatory under our law.

Other than that this would be a states rights issue, where it would be up to each individual state whether or not an oath is required of any office holder in that state, and the oath's content and construction.

quote:

it gets retarded I get bored really quickly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're a liar. you know as well as I do that the document demanded that the governors do a bunch of crap that isn't at all related to an oath to the Constitution, you even posted the list upthread . As a matter of fact most of the things they demand are simply unconstitutional legally.

Wow I was not aware that "special" you were privy to the document sent to the governors.

So kenny you ole zionist fess up lets see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
If it's such a pain to keep educating the 'tards, then go away.  Surely you must be tired of shooting fish in a barrel.  You have other websites to educate, do you not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
If it's such a pain to keep educating the 'tards, then go away.  Surely you must be tired of shooting fish in a barrel.  You have other websites to educate, do you not?

Sounds like a good idea to me. RealOne, why don't you head over to this forum: http://www.psychforums.com/living-with-mental-illness/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You posted it already, why are you now pretending you don't know what was on the list of demands? Go back and look at your own post on page 1.

Once again do you have any idea what a zionist is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Doing a little research on the History of the Sovereign Citizen movement,

The term Sovereign citizen is a misnomer and many use it incorrectly

I find that they have a selectivity issues concerning which state or federal control they will or will not recognize. Making statements that they are no longer citizens of the state or United States should mean that they no longer have the benefits of such citizenship, yet when prosecuted, they exercise their rights, quite quickly from what I have been able to find out in my research.

So in your version you need to be a citizen of 3m corporation to get a benefit as a shareholder to that corporation eh?

Do you see your error?

Furthermore, the Sovereign Citizen movement has some rather interesting followers, Terry Nichols, (friend and accomplice of Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh) Linda Lyon Block and George Sibley (who murdered an Opelika, Alabama, police officer,) George Wolf (shot two volunteer firefighters in Ashtabula County, Ohio, because their vehicle blocked him,) the Montana Freemen (held off federal authorities attempting to arrest them (on a variety of charges) for 81 days near Jordan, Montana,) Richard McLaren (his group of followers, the so-called "Republic of Texas" initiated another armed confrontation in far-West Texas when they kidnapped a local couple in response to the arrest of one of their members. One of the group's members was killed in the standoff.)

Yeh that is really to bad that the thugs would infringe on peoples rights and force them to take up arms against them.


The are also famous for the use of false lawsuits and falsified liens against public officials, including judges and law enforcement officers.

Yeh well when people play their own lawyer role they make mistakes and of course those mistakes are capitalized upon to help keep the chattel sheep in line.

While stating that they are immune from jurisdiction of state and federal courts, they sure seemed to like to use them to their advantage, even committing the crimes of fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Doing a little research on the History of the Sovereign Citizen movement,

The term Sovereign citizen is a misnomer and many use it incorrectly


So in your version you need to be a citizen of 3m corporation to get a benefit as a shareholder to that corporation eh?

Do you see your error?

I am saying that if they deny they are citizens of the United States, then they should not be so fast to invoke the rights that citizenship grants. It is a hypocritical act of them to do so.


Yeh that is really to bad that the thugs would infringe on peoples rights and force them to take up arms against them.


There was no justification for the murder of a police officer who was doing his duty, or the shooting of two volunteer firemen who were doing their job. Kidnapping is justified? As for the freemen, they had committed bank fraud, used fraudulent liens against individuals, all criminal acts. If you think htat these acts are justified, then you are as crazy as we think you are, or just plain stupid. Of course, you could be nothing more than a troll.

The are also famous for the use of false lawsuits and falsified liens against public officials, including judges and law enforcement officers.

Yeh well when people play their own lawyer role they make mistakes and of course those mistakes are capitalized upon to help keep the chattel sheep in line.

They used these tactics on purpose, they did succeed in getting states to pass laws to prevent such activity in the future. I guess we should be thankful for that. However, using fraud to further your cause makes no point, it just gets you thrown in jail by a court system that whether you want to believe it or not, has the power to put you in prison.

While stating that they are immune from jurisdiction of state and federal courts, they sure seemed to like to use them to their advantage, even committing the crimes of fraud.

Oh?

So you think they are not immune? 

By all means show me the congressional act that supports that looney theory.


Show me the part of the constitution that says they are immune from prosecution. Considering that these courts they claim have no jurisdiction over them have managed to put quite a few of these extremists in prison for crimes ranging from fraud to murder.

How can you condone these criminal acts? A sane person cannot condone murder, as for the rest of it, why dont you try to get away with fraud and see how far you get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Doing a little research on the History of the Sovereign Citizen movement,

The term Sovereign citizen is a misnomer and many use it incorrectly


So in your version you need to be a citizen of 3m corporation to get a benefit as a shareholder to that corporation eh?

Do you see your error?

I am saying that if they deny they are citizens of the United States, then they should not be so fast to invoke the rights that citizenship grants. It is a hypocritical act of them to do so.

Damn man....I cant stress enough that when you own stock in the IBM corporation that does not make you a citizen.  HOWEVER if IBM corporation sent you a letter asking if you want to be a citizen of the IBM corporation and you say yes then you are in fact and in law a citizen of the IBM corporation.

I gave you people the definitions in previous posts right out of the law dictionaries, I gave you people the UScode descriptions and still you dont get it.

Really not to much I can do if you cannot grasp the construction and NO I do not been to be a citizen of the united states to take benefit from any contract or trust I have with the US, and NO STATE can grant rights zippo zero nadda to fuckin badda..


Yeh that is really to bad that the thugs would infringe on peoples rights and force them to take up arms against them.


There was no justification for the murder of a police officer who was doing his duty, or the shooting of two volunteer firemen who were doing their job. Kidnapping is justified? As for the freemen, they had committed bank fraud, used fraudulent liens against individuals, all criminal acts. If you think htat these acts are justified, then you are as crazy as we think you are, or just plain stupid. Of course, you could be nothing more than a troll.

There was no justification for wasting 168 innocent women and children by government thugs at waco.  If you think htat these acts are justified, then you are as crazy as we think you are, or just plain stupid. Of course, you could be nothing more than a troll.


The are also famous for the use of false lawsuits and falsified liens against public officials, including judges and law enforcement officers.

Yeh well when people play their own lawyer role they make mistakes and of course those mistakes are capitalized upon to help keep the chattel sheep in line.

They used these tactics on purpose, they did succeed in getting states to pass laws to prevent such activity in the future. I guess we should be thankful for that. However, using fraud to further your cause makes no point, it just gets you thrown in jail by a court system that whether you want to believe it or not, has the power to put you in prison.

Again the court system has no jurisdiction.  The power they have is from people like you sitting on their asses and doing nothing to protect the constitution and allowing thugs to have guns with sanction.  When someone goes to court and makes a mistake that may be fraud as that is the term used in legalese however that does not disqualify the purpose or remedy.  That and you will find that those very laws they passed are now being used against them because that axe swings both ways.

While stating that they are immune from jurisdiction of state and federal courts, they sure seemed to like to use them to their advantage, even committing the crimes of fraud.

Oh?

So you think they are not immune? 

By all means show me the congressional act that supports that looney theory.


Show me the part of the constitution that says they are immune from prosecution. Considering that these courts they claim have no jurisdiction over them have managed to put quite a few of these extremists in prison for crimes ranging from fraud to murder.

Do you remotely understand juridiction? How about contract or commercial law?  You will find your answer there.

One word they have the GUNS and a country of flunkies who let them use them.

Yeh standing up for your constitutional rights makes someone an extremist and those who would condemn such actions a traitor.  You know since we are tossing around labels n shit.

How can you condone these criminal acts? A sane person cannot condone murder, as for the rest of it, why dont you try to get away with fraud and see how far you get.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Yeh that is really to bad that the thugs would infringe on peoples rights and force them to take up arms against them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I never said Waco was justified.

Well you do not hesitate to label people who hold the same views as those of waco extremists as I pointed out earlier, that being the case it follows you support the thugs.

As for Linda Lyon Block and George Sibley murdering a police officer or George Wolf shooting two volunteer fire fighters, you seem to think that they were within their rights to do so.

Well I am sorry but I dont think that they we justified in murdering 168 innocent people at waco.

Do you think that your 4 people somehow are worse than 168 people? 

Seems you need to pull the log out of your eye before you pull the splinter out mine.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Yeh that is really to bad that the thugs would infringe on peoples rights and force them to take up arms against them.

So a police officer doing his duty or two fire fighters are thugs? I think not.