• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

I would like to discuss the issue of sovereignty.

FOTLers often use the term "Freeman" and "Sovereign" synonymously.

They will say that "no one is above the law", and the constitution protects our "Sovereign" status, with our "leaders" (president, police officers, members of congress), being the servants, serving us. But, (according to FOTLers, our status as "sovereign" has been eroded over time).

According to the 1856 edition of Bouvier's law dictionary, Sovereign, and Sovereignty are defined as follows:

SOVEREIGNTY.The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. §207.

2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad; and the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q. v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q. v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. §208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h. t.

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.
Click to expand...

So if I am reading that right, its clear that FOTLers tout definition #1 of 'Sovereignty' as their unofficial slogan. But they miss definition #2
 
Last edited:
therival58 said:
So if I am reading that right, its clear that FOTLers tout definition #1 of 'Sovereignty' as their unofficial slogan. But they miss definition #2
Click to expand...
From the little I've heard about footlers, they misinterpret Definition No. 2 as applying to each individual personally ("in the body of the people"), in each person's body, so that your sovereignty resides in your body, my sovereignty in mine, etc.

But I think they also deny that they are people, so I could be wrong and their craziness could be based on something else entirely.
 
therival58 said:
But what is "Corpus Juris Sec"?
Click to expand...

Corpus Juris Secundum is a legal encyclopedia. Similar to Black's Legal Dictionary, it is not a binding legal authority. It is just a kind of handy restatement of the law. I tried to look up the citation you were discussing, but I couldn't find anything. But rest assured, it doesn't say what the Freemen says it does.

For what it's worth, I once heard a story that one particular law firm said they would fire any associate who cited CJS in their legal briefs.
 
Bosozoku said:
For what it's worth, I once heard a story that one particular law firm said they would fire any associate who cited CJS in their legal briefs.
Click to expand...



...because CJS is giving away the Real Secrets(tm) they want covered up! :boxedin:
 
Just for kicks, I went ahead and looked this up. The proper citation is 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 968.

The basic proposition here seems to be that, for the purposes of a particular state taxation statute, the United States is considered a "foreign" (out of state) corporation rather than a "domestic" (in state) corporation. The question came up because New York enacted a state taxation statute which allowed them to tax domestic (in state) corporations when they inherited property. Someone died and bequeathed the United States property, and New York argued that the United States government was an in-state corporation and that they could tax them on that inheritance. The state court and Supreme Court held that the United States was an out of state corporation for the purposes of this statute.

I think the confusion here is that the Freemen are saying that because the United States government sometimes functions as a corporation, the United States is only a corporation. This case kind of shows that sometimes we have to apply corporate law to transactions entered into by the United States government. There is no court or statute saying that the United States government has ceased to be a body politic.
 
Last edited:
Bosozoku said:
Just for kicks, I went ahead and looked this up. The proper citation is 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 968.

The basic proposition here seems to be that, for the purposes of a particular state taxation statute, the United States is considered a "foreign" (out of state) corporation rather than a "domestic" (in state) corporation.
Click to expand...



Do they give any clear definitions of these terms? The Fotlers seem to have concluded that "foreign" is automatically "not American". Was this the usage the court intended? I expect not.


Hmmm....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foreign

for·eign (fôrn, fr-)
adj.
1. Located away from one's native country: on business in a foreign city.
2. Of, characteristic of, or from a place or country other than the one being considered: a foreign custom.
3. Conducted or involved with other nations or governments; not domestic: foreign trade.
4. Situated in an abnormal or improper place in the body and typically introduced from outside: a foreign object in the eye.
5. Not natural; alien: Jealousy is foreign to her nature.
6. Not germane; irrelevant.
7. Subject to the jurisdiction of another political unit.
Click to expand...


I expect they were using #7 there....The US is not subject to the jurisdiction of New York State, after all.
 
for·eign [ fáwrən ]


adjective
Definition:

1. of another country: relating to, from, or located in a country or countries other than your own
She speaks three foreign languages.

2. dealing with another country: dealing with or involved with a country or countries other than your own
foreign policy

3. coming from outside: introduced from outside into a place where it does not belong, often in the human body

4. uncharacteristic: not usually associated with a particular person or thing
Such outbursts are quite foreign to her nature.

5. irrelevant: not related or relevant ( formal )
observations that are foreign to the matter in hand

6. law beyond jurisdiction: being beyond the jurisdiction of an area or a country
foreign waters
Click to expand...


http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/foreign.html
 
The cases cited in C.J.S. didn't specifically define what they meant by "foreign" corporation, and I suspect that was because the writers thought it was obvious from the context. In the legal sense, "foreign" also means out of state. Here is the Black's definition of "foreign corporation":

Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. said:
foreign corporation. (18c) A corporation that was organized and chartered under the laws of another state, government, or country . . . [for example,] in Arizona, a California corporation is said to be a foreign corporation.
Click to expand...

Thankfully the Black's definition clarifies by example that "foreign" means "out of state" as well as "out of country." You'd figure the FOTLers would know this, given that they love to misquote Black's.

As I said earlier, Black's isn't binding legal authority. However, this comports with the accepted legal definition of "foreign corporation" as I understand it, and this was the understanding of that definition in the cases cited by C.J.S. I'm sure you're as shocked as I am that the Freemen got this one wrong.
 
Oh, a Black's reference! Imagine all the FoTLer brains melting trying to get around that one! :D
 
You'd figure the FOTLers would know this, given that they love to misquote Black's.
Click to expand...
They are quite specific as to which edition to use when the definition fits the agenda of the day.
 
Bosozoku said:
Just for kicks, I went ahead and looked this up. The proper citation is 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 968.

The basic proposition here seems to be that, for the purposes of a particular state taxation statute, the United States is considered a "foreign" (out of state) corporation rather than a "domestic" (in state) corporation. The question came up because New York enacted a state taxation statute which allowed them to tax domestic (in state) corporations when they inherited property. Someone died and bequeathed the United States property, and New York argued that the United States government was an in-state corporation and that they could tax them on that inheritance. The state court and Supreme Court held that the United States was an out of state corporation for the purposes of this statute.

I think the confusion here is that the Freemen are saying that because the United States government sometimes functions as a corporation, the United States is only a corporation. This case kind of shows that sometimes we have to apply corporate law to transactions entered into by the United States government. There is no court or statute saying that the United States government has ceased to be a body politic.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for finding the context!:cool:
 
So they say it comes from the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

yes your right therival58 it did, thats obvious when you read it.
 
Last edited:
cocana said:
The point is being probed on Icke's at the moment.
Click to expand...
I think probed gives it far too much credit, some people are demonstrating that they are too stupid to understand that extending the common meaning does not remove it.
 
cocana said:
And don't forget to read this one - http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059843994&postcount=243 - it's a hoot. It would appear to be a stundie contender too.

Man is not a human being, apparently. I seem to recall Grndslm running that argument too and informing us that he wasn't human.

Poor chaps, the pair of them.
Click to expand...

LOL
yozhik wrote on Ickes:

Whilst a human being may legally be a person, it is inherently flawed to then state that a human being IS a man or woman.

IF ... a man has a person, and
IF ... a person is a human being and a human being is a person,
THEN ... a man has a human being.

It does not support the conclusion that a man IS a human being.
Click to expand...
Isn't it disturbing that these people are walking amongst us?
 
Stacey Grove said:
LOL
yozhik wrote on Ickes:


Isn't it disturbing that these people are walking amongst us?
Click to expand...

He doesn't know when to stop for breath. He's just done it again -

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059844033&postcount=244

The natural person IS a legal personality.
Click to expand...

PRECISELY!

But I guess he now needs to go back and explain how a natural person isn't a person = isn't a human being = not man or woman = not himself, so as to be consistent with his previous post.

What a menard, as they say!

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom