Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Are You A Sovereign Citizen?

Dave Hodges, Contributor
Activist Post

Governments never stop trying to find ways to cast legitimate dissenters in a negative light. In the 1990s when as the globalists began to play their hand in earnest (e.g. NAFTA, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.), anyone who spoke out against the international corridor highway system (NAFTA and CAFTA), was opposed to job-sucking free trade agreements and was opposed to the regionalization of the US into the North American Union was labeled as a “conspiracy theorist.” Anyone who saw a conspiracy in anything, any person, or any event, was labeled as being mentally ill.

In the last decade, the term conspiracy theorist began to give way to certain patriotic traits which no legitimate government should have had a concern with. Only this time, if one opposed anything that the government did, the person was labeled a domestic terrorist.

Most aware citizens will have no trouble remembering the upsetting contents of the MIAC Report which served to declare an individual a domestic terrorist if they supported Ron Paul, demanded the government follow the Constitution, was pro-Second Amendment, was a Libertarian, a Constitutionalist, a returning veteran or was opposed in any form to the Federal Reserve. Subsequently, the alternative, and truthful media, roundly criticized this anti-American document and slowly, but surely, the MIAC report faded from public view as it lost legitimacy.

The MIAC Report, Gone But Not Forgotten

The newest globalist trick to quell dissent and subsequently violate the rights of legitimate government protesters is to hide under the guise of being labeled “THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN.” Under no circumstances should an American identify themselves as a sovereign citizen. To do so, could have very dire consequences.


The term “sovereign citizen” is deceptive because in political discussions about who has the power in society, the term gets used quite often. For example, if the people are the sovereign, then the people have power over the government. If on the other hand, the government has power over the citizenry, it could be accurately said that the government is the sovereign. Yet, again, my strong advice to all Americans is to avoid using the term all together and in the following paragraphs, I detail why.

The Stacy Lynne Case

Stacy Lynne is the beleaguered mother of a nine-year-old boy, who had her little boy stolen by a corrupt judge, Julie Kunce Fields, in retaliation for Stacy’s anti-Agenda 21 public presentations which were serving to slow down the ICLEI invasion of Fort Collins, Colorado. For her trouble, Stacy, without so much of an allegation of wrongdoing, lost total custody of her son was given to the biological father who, by all accounts, previously showed little interest in being a father to Jaden. The judge is a former consultant to the IMF and the World Bank. Field is a globalist and this was her first judgeship. She was brought in to silence Stacy by stealing her child in order to derail her anti-Agenda 21 activities. You can read about this heinous case here. The only negative that Field has ever written or said about Stacy is that Stacy Lynne is a sovereign citizen. This legal declaration first took place on December 21, 2011, the day Stacy lost custody of Jaden. Stacy read the court order, which severed her custodial rights to We Are Change Colorado, as Stacy noted that Field had declared her to be a “sovereign citizen.”

I have watched the video of this several times and I am still confused about what constitutes a sovereign citizen. At least I was confused until I recently read a police magazine which goes out to every police department in America in which they addressed what exactly constitutes a sovereign citizen.

The New Domestic Terrorist: A Sovereign Citizen

As it turns out, labeling someone as a “sovereign citizen” is the 2013 version of the discredited MIAC Report which labeled Ron Paul supporters, Second Amendment advocates, returning veterans and people who support the Constitution as domestic terrorists.

Get Your Federal Firearms License
The strategy is simple: if one criticizes the government in any form they can be labeled a sovereign citizen. And if the government can label one a sovereign citizen, then that citizen has no rights and ostensibly, the government can do what they will with that citizen.

This anti-dissident strategy takes America one step away from full implementation of disappearing American protesters under the NDAA for sovereign citizens. This is a very slippery slope and the government and its police agencies are fully committed to this strategy.

What Exactly Is A Sovereign Citizen?

As one traces the origin of the term sovereign citizen, in its contemporary vernacular, the term gained its roots in a shoot-out following a routine traffic stop in Arkansas as it turned into an violent confrontation between police and a father-son pair of so-called “sovereign citizens.” According to the corporate-controlled media, this event, which occurred on July 1, 2010, ”brought attention to a secretive and dangerous subculture which believes American laws don’t apply to them.”

The federal government was quick to seize on this opportunity and bootstrap the term to any group that the federal government feels would oppose any of its policies. In short, if you do not like some aspect of government, you are now one the new domestic terrorists and should be subject to governmental control outside the bounds of constitutional protections.

Police Magazine, provide the first real comprehensive definition of what constitutes a sovereign citizen as they note that the crimes committed by sovereigns often include relatively minor offenses such as the manufacture of fraudulent license plates, registration cards, or currency (e.g. use of gold coins). So, in the first part of this definition, sovereign citizens are defined as essentially petty criminals. Wait a minute, we were told under the Bush administration that we had to give up our civil liberties so the government could protect us from terribly dangerous terrorists. Sorry DHS, I just don’t see how a petty criminal constitutes a national security threat. Further, the magazine stated that all of these people should be considered to be armed and dangerous and that the calling in of a SWAT team during routine traffic stops might not be an overreaction to the threat posed by sovereigns.

The police can further identify a dangerous sovereign individual if they complain about mortgage fraud, or banking fraud. Police Magazine notes that the tactics employed by “sovereigns” are not always violent. I had to read that last statement twice as I try and determine what is the extreme danger to society. The case in point here, would be Stacy Lynne’s opposition to Agenda 21 policies in Fort Collins, Colorado. The police are also cautioned to be on the lookout for words like “Indigenous,” “Sovereign,” “Diplomatic,” “Exempt,” or “Private Property” displayed on the personalized license plates.

Police officers are advised that Sovereigns will engage in willful terrorism because they may actually video-record their interactions with law enforcement officers. To the contrary, the courts have upheld citizens’ right to video the police. Police can expect to be further intimidated as some of these encounters are live-streamed via the Internet and watched by local like-minded sovereigns, and this could pose a threat a possible threat to police safety. So if one has a YouTube channel, they might be a sovereign citizen. Police are also cautioned to be aware of certain dangerous key words that sovereigns are likely to use such as “oath of office”, "traveling in a private capacity”, “domicile” and the “14th Amendment.”

“Sovereign citizen groups, with few exceptions and despite their differences, will choose to unite against their one common enemy: the government and its agents.” I thought our Founding Fathers encouraged future generations to oppose all forms tyranny emanating from the government. What did Jefferson say? Something like resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.


Conclusion

One would be wise to avoid being labeled with the new domestic terrorist term, sovereign citizen. Carried out to its extreme, as in the case of Stacy Lynne, a sovereign citizen is not something that one wants to be labeled as the term is bootstrapping all legitimate concerns about the government and virtually criminalizing dissent and protest. And with the NDAA hanging over American heads, admitting to being a sovereign citizen could be a very bad idea.

RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
Be a Proud Conspiracy Theorist, You're in the Majority

Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms Phoenix, News With Views and The Arizona Republic.

The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.




BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's a cult...Washington, Hollywood and the media. Hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors and eloquent meaningless speeches that represent absolutely nothing that average Americans are dealing with today.

Everything is so glossed over, a veneer that average Americans are no longer buying, no longer accepting the BS.

Look at the viewership numbers, CNN,CNBC,MSNBC...The MSM is losing traction in their propaganda fight.

This whole second amendment debacle has awaken a sleeping giant, people have seen enough.

ENOUGH

Grimnir said...

The term "Sovereign Citizen" is an oxymoron. If you are a Citizen, belonging to some group or collective, you are not, by definition, Sovereign. Sovereign Individual works far better and make more sense.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Grimnir, I was going to say that same thing

Roger Young said...

Grimnir- You stole my thunder.
“Citizen” is just a friendly sounding work for “state slave.”
ALL humans are born sovereign (having independent authority). To believe otherwise is to believe men are born slaves.

Mark McCandlish said...

There is a distinction between the U.S. "14th Amendment citizen" and the Common-Law, "sovereign" state Citizen. The difference is in fact delineated three times in the Constitution where you find the phrase "U.S. citizens or Citizens of the several states". Sovereignty was in fact the reason the Founding Fathers sought to achieve independence from the King of England as former "subject status citizens" under the Crown and this is clear from any detailed reading of their writings.

But the 14th Amendment, supposedly established to guarantee "equal protection under the law" for all citizens after the end of the Civil War (presuming this was directed at the then emancipated black slaves) did just the opposite: It made anyone declaring themselves to be a U.S. citizen to be a subject status citizens.

Just look up the text of the Amendment for yourself-- (and I paraphrase here from memory: "Any person born or naturalized within the territory of the United States and SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof, is entitled to equal protection of the law."

Now citizenship is a political status, protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. (See ex-parte Ng Fung Sing). So whatever status one chooses, the government is prohibitted by the 1st Amendment from controlling, coercing or attempting to deem anyone as to the type of citizenship they choose. It would be like the USG dictating that you will be a Democrat or a Republican. It is strictly prohibited. But they will drive you into the subject status condition of "person" (a corporate entity) at every turn, if you allow them. It is done through the nexus of the Social Security number, under which application you are deemed to have "made an election" to be treated as a U.S. (14th Amendment), subject-status "person" also known as a "resident" (which is really short for "resident alien". (It's right in the law if you know where to look.

And even the law says very clearly that the state Citizen, a Common-Law, sovereign "natural human being" (as opposed to the "person") has and enjoys different rights than a U.S. citizen. This in a nutshell is what the sovereignty movement was/is about and why the federal government is striving so hard to marginalize it. This is also why every suit brought against Obama challenging his natural-born status has been shot down when brought by U.S. citizens. They are not sovereign and have no "standing" to question the chief executive of the corporate United States. U.S. citizens after all, are all franchises of that corporation, and ya'll don't want to be dis-enfranchised... do you?

Anonymous said...

Read a reference long ago and not at hand, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Citizens (of state obviously, this was pre civil war) were as "sovereigns without subjects." So the term "sovereign citizen" is not an oxymoron, rather a legal description of a free man or woman not subject to federal regulation. Such Citizens collectively own the state in allodium. Fat chance getting anywhere with this knowledge. Being free is now a crime!

Hide Behind said...

Been associated with sovereignty movement off and on since 1960's amd it had been a part of American political scene from long befoe then, actualy it was a legal precept at founding.
Yet it got no siport very soon after around 1820 in the original colonys.
They. State and fed offivials and those merchant and holders of bound servants, wanted to still control the mass migration out of their individual state borders.
Self suffeciency and personal responsabilty were always frontiere mentality but the cocept of the people as doverrign was strong umtil 1860's. And many of our greatest Congessionsl and Judicial and orators of individual liberty were dtrong supporters.
The buisness and State powers began destroying that concept in 1950s.
It is odd but it was a conservative cause for times till then and soon both liberal and democrats and facism took over the conservatives.
IT even got a boost during the anti draft anti war movement, as it had inWwi Wwii and Korean BS.
Today we do not have Conservative movement but more a fascist movement built on military servitude and glorification of american arms.
True as one writer saif about feds sneaking onto wroting that made acceptance of U S programs and benigited from them ginancially you lost classification.
Destroyed wad cocept that an individual could mske "contracts" with goverment as a sovereign individual.
Lots of things hide behind that concept and just recently corporated were granted that vlassification.if you read laws fully.
Social Security was a contract not a compact between those who voluntarily placed their money in the overnment program.
Reason you could not use card for ID originally it did not relinquish individual sovereignty.
PLAIN TRUTH FDAMN NEAR ALL AMERICANS DO NOT WANT INFIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, THEY COULD NOT HANDLE IT.

Anonymous said...

in short , a state slave has more rights than a federal slave ...

Anonymous said...

Paytriotard mythology nonsense, the law is whatever they say the law is. And that is Talmudic Law.

Anonymous said...

I hereby declare my self a Sovereign Being. If the Gubermint is trying to smear them the Sovereign movement must be onto some truth!!

Anonymous said...

If you want to be a sovereign citizen then take your asses over to russia or veitnam or some other country. Really I feel as if your are committing treason on your country we were built with laws and penal systems to help put dumbasses like yourselves away where you belong.

Mark McCandlish said...

@ Anonymous 5:12 PM: You forget the Founding Fathers were state citizens, under the Common Law which originated in England. The Constitution itself was written under the precepts of English Common Law. (Look it up!) So when the American Revolution came, these "citizens of the several states" sought to be sovereign just as the King was or to use a legal phrase, "sui juris" (capable of handling their own private and legal affairs.)

When State and Federal officials tell you they "do not recognize Common Law" they are really telling you they do not honor their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. The federal enclave States, characterized by the full capitalization of the state name as in: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA is the federal enclave state created around 1939 by California Senator John Buck (also known as the Buck Act or the Public Salary Tax Act) which created a overlying federal territory superimposed on the Common Law states as distinguished by the "California Republic" etc., and the legislative intent was specifically to tax U.S. citizens, (who are technically domiciled within the District of Columbia) but are resident aliens for taxation purposes ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD! The phrase commonly used to describe the U.S. citizen in the federal enclave is "resident". Common Law state citizens, are considered non-resident aliens within the federal enclave.

So as you can see, it is all about using the legalese to confuse the citizenry. If they can make you a subject status "person", then you really will have no say. This is one of the main reasons why the schools have been so critical to the progressive socialist agenda. Kids do not learn about where we really came from as a nation and as a free people. I fear it will not be long before many of us are sitting in internment camps. In fact the Army National Guard is running employment ads asking for people to apply for jobs in these facilities right now. Just Google it.

Anonymous said...

You all are fucking stupid. Anarchist rantings make more sense than the crap you people are spewing. I would bet my next paycheck if you wife/mother/sister were being raped by a free sovereign citizen you would be looking for a cop and a court to make sure that it never happened again

Twits!

Anonymous said...

Freedom of the People has died.
The Hate of each other will bring down
the death and bloodshed of all.
All hope has died, the Nation is
in Debt, the Leadership has Failed.
All that's left is War and Death!

American indian Movement, Warrior Society said...

I consider myself a loyal American , beholding to the contract between the people and the federal government called the Constitution. Being part native american I hold no animosity concerning the deeds of the past committed under the guise of 'civilizing' my people. But I did not forget. To do so I would have to be a fool. If the government does not honor the controls and laws that stipulate it's legitimacy, it is no longer the legitimate government. This is common sense. The question is, have they honored this contract between the people and the states and the federal government? Furthermore, who are the real traitors, the people who want to preserve the Constitution , our nations dignity and lawfulness, or those in the smokey backrooms working to undermine and destroy every great precept this nation was founded under such as liberty and justice for everyone? I have personally been victimized by persons who have conspired in secret to destroy our way of life and our nations sovereignty simply because I realize what is going on. I do not advocate the overthrow of the government, on the contrary I advocate getting rid of those who already have secretly and restoring the government to intimacy under the Constitution. If this makes me a terrorist, then label me however you choose.

Anonymous said...

I was just reading, or should I say trying to read, the post by "Hide Behind". It is difficult to take seriously any thought put forth by someone who cannot spell, has no grasp of grammar, and can't even carry a coherent thought through fruition. This is a common trait of people who adhere to right-wing reactionary dogma. Your ignorance and lack of intellect make any of the history or facts you cite suspect. How can anything you say be taken seriously? Who can even understand what you are saying? You proudly, flamingly flaunt your idiocy. But you are "preaching to the choir". Anyone with more than two brain cells that occasionally bump together will laugh at you and your fears. Only the equally stupid will believe anything you write.

Anonymous said...

In reponse to the above.... I read the same article and have this to say:Any literate computer person would reconize that if he wrote the text in an older software there would be word glitches in a newer software version. It was obvious to me. It's not "saying " anything in fact the post has no sound. If u didn't understand u shouldn't have commented...luckily its anonymous, so no one else will recognize ur stupidity. Any misspelled word u find in this comment u can run it thru spellcheck for grading. Since u have no clue the real reason for these posts

Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving my point. If you have to rely on computer software to correct, modify, or clarify your thoughts, then how well thought-out, how valid can they really be? And a truly "literate" person would not use "software glitch" to excuse an inability to state a logical case for a position being proffered. And I'm sorry you have trouble with the colloquial use of the term "saying", I hope using "state" doesn't confuse you as well. You wrote: "I read the same article and have this to say". To use your own feeble attempt at denigration, I did not hear any sound. Otherwise, you offer nothing to counter my postulation. So maybe u r da stupid 1, as "its" in your usage requires an apostrophe, and your last sentence, which isn't even complete, should have something at the end to indicate you intended to stop without completion, rather than just your drool shorting-out the keyboard at an inopportune time. If you have something thoughtful or insightful to say, oh, excuuuuuuse me, write, then do it. Show the world you have some depth, that indeed you have something of value to offer the world to better the human condition. Show us that you have a clue. Re-read your own post and you will "reconize" "ur" own "stupidity". That is what should be obvious to you. It is to the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

All I get from all of this is that "Sovereign Citizens" believe they are not subject to any law. What are the other benefits of declaring yourself as one of these idiots? I bet you take advantage of the country you are in! You enjoy our roads, Fire Departments, Police Departments and EMS, don't you? The ONLY reason I see you declaring yourself practically your own country, is so that you can pretend you are immune to the laws of this country you claim to love so much. If you love this country, why would you renounce your citizenship? For the record, I'm pretty sick of conspiracy theorists including genres of people into their circle for the sole reason that they believe it gives them credibility. I am a Republican, a "Constitutionalist", a Ron Paul supporter, a returned disabled veteran, and I now proudly serve as a police officer. The simple fact that you think you know what we're told to look out for shows your credibility. I'm a cop in TEXAS, and the only thing I've been told about "Sovereign Citizens" is they are camera warriors. You talk, type on the internet, and whine and bitch to eachother. At the end of the day, though, you don't change or accomplish anything. You want to change the big bad evil corporations and government? Go to school, get an education and change it from the inside. Politicians will not change their ways because you like to put up videos on YouTube. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

To the TEXAS cop: First thank you for your service to the country. However, you need to research Sovereign Citizen before being so critical. You do not have to renounce citizenship, to become a Sovereign Citizen! You do have to appear before a "Common Law Court" and claim the freedom which has been so stealthily stolen from you! Sovereign Citizens are every bit as Patriotic, honest, and law abiding as you claim to be. IF you are really a "Constitutionalist", as you claim READ IT AGAIN! Your post sounds like you are mistakenly starting to look at everyone you don't understand as "The Enemy", including the public you are sworn to serve! Dangerous attitude for someone in law enforcement! I suggest you take your own advice and get better educated about those you criticise.
A proud card carrying "Sovereign Citizen", PhD, Constitutionalist, and Ron Paul supporter.

Anonymous said...

Learn to record affidavits in your county court of record and prosecute any politician who violates their oath of office . The common law still stands and they fear it , as well they should .

Anonymous said...

police officer?on the goverment payroll?comfortable puppet? of course you would disagree with people tired of oppression-where would you be without uncle sam-broke growing your own garden for food or breaking the law to feed your self and family provided of course you were able to reproduce!!get a grip and please stay in texas-get with george bush he knows what to do with guys like you! why would anybody want to distance themselves from the us goverment?law inforcement did a real good job watching the twin towers? rite! watching them collapse in there own foot print? good job ace! a few guys and box cutters! fool !your the perfect mk ultra subject!gee whats that? ya know some of us have a built in moral and just law who needs you?or all the cameras at the station-in your squad car or in every intersection etc etc! whats the matter camera shy or YOUdont want to get caught?

Anonymous said...

anyone who submits to this tyrany is a fool and or is weak minded "dumbed down" and should gladly get what they get from these communist bastards in washington d.c.

I say the revolution has allready begun and the only hold outs that will survive this are those who will be born long after the new world order slave police state has been fully exposed and murdered millions and enslaved what is left.
there will be another cry of taxation and slavery without representation someday may be if they have'nt bred the gene out for critical thinking abillty in the worker class and slave class and the thug class.

Jeff Henrickson said...

The U.S. Gov, has failed us all, Destroying our family's with all kinds of corrupt way to extort our dollar. Everything from falsified doc, in order to get child support for the stats of California to I.R.S. Corruption. THE U.S Gov. is selling us all out. They are selling this country out from under us. This Country does not belong to the Gov, it belongs to us. I am a Sovereign American, Iv had my family destroyed by our so called Gov. and they still continue to do so. All Americans need to claim sovereign, It do'sent mean we,r bad people, it jest means we dont agree with bad Gov, and are tired of all the B.S. Lies and corruption.

derek madlock said...

I've read several of the posts and it seems to me that the people who speak intelligently on the matter are the sovereign people and those who are against sovereignty and against the Constitution resort to name calling, bullying and foul language to try and get their point across.

Anonymous said...

President Obama is an American hating subversive. I am standing by watching my civilization go down the toilet.

Anonymous said...

I think it's funny that the IRS has a publication out about the terrorist "Sovereign Citizen" and all reference made to such an identity that I can find online make these people out to be terrorists ... Me thinks the same thing b/c they obviously have no idea who they are !! You can't be "sovereign" AND "citizen" and anyone who uses the two as an identity clearly needs his head examined and has not studied definitions and is not competent to govern himself. One either makes the laws or is governed by them. Figure it out. If one writes a post titled, "Sovereign Citizen" and are attempting to speak with any authority, I review your words with very little merit of credibility.

Post a Comment