• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE "SOVEREIGN" AND "SOVEREIGNTY"

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#42
Maybe this will require another thread, but where do you think Pete Hendrickson is wrong, and what do you think he's right about? Is he wrong about the income tax being a federal excise tax? Is his understanding of the definitions of wages, employee, etc wrong? Why do you think he's wrong about trying to get your money back? Also, what do Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer get right about the income tax?
Hello jbeck57143,

THIS POST IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.

This is what my preliminary research reveals about Pete Hendrickson.

43 F.3d 1021 (1994)UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Scott SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-2502.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued September 26, 1994.Decided October
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10255504821050826982&q="Peter+Hendrickson"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. CLICK ON THE PRECEDING LINK FOR THIS CASE AND READ IT ALL.

In this this case, Pete Henderson and his future wife, Doreen Wright, attended a meeting in Detroit that was also attended by Scott and Karen Scarbrough. The group decided that on April 16th, 1990 (the last day to pay income taxes), they would place a "firebomb" in a padded envelope in a bin at the United States Post Office which was addressed "to the tax thieves" from "freedom loving Americans". Afterwards, the package exploded injuring both a postal worker and a bystander. Doreen Wright was found to have stolen the red phosphorus used to make the firebomb from a school where she worked.

The government charged both Hendrickson and Wright with conspiracy to place the device at a United States Post office. The government offered the Scarboroughs immunity from prosecution in exchange for their truthful testimony before the grand jury in the case against Hendrickson and Wright. But, when testifying before the grand jury, the Scarboroughs denied all knowledge of the scheme and claimed that that Henderson could not have possibly been involved (they lied to get Hendrickson off the hook).

But, Hendrickson nevertheless plead guilty to the charges in exchange for a reduced sentence and immunity for Wright. But, in a new scheme to get a further reduction of his sentence, Hendrickson and Wright secretly tape recorded conversations they had with the Scarbroughs which proved that the Scargroughs knew that Hendrickson himself placed the firebomb in the Post Office bin while Wright waited in the car. This proved that the Scarbouroghs committed perjury before the grand jury in trying to get Henderson off the hook.

So, the government charged the Scarboroughs with conspiracy to obstruct justice and several counts of making false statements to the grand jury. Hendrickson got his sentence further reduced. The Scarboroughs were convicted by a jury. The court of appeals upheld that conviction. With friends like the Hendrisksons, you don't need enemies.



US v. Hendrickson, 822 F. 3d 812 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2016

822 F.3d 812 (2016)UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Doreen M. HENDRICKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-1446.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: January 14, 2016.Decided and Filed: March 11, 2016.Rehearing En Banc​

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15537873889821390555&q="Peter+Hendrickson"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. CLICK ON THE PRECEDING LINK AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.

In this case in the court below, the United States civilly sued Doreen Hendrickson. Pete Hendrickson's wife, for failure to file and failure to pay income taxes. At the time, Hendrickson was not charged with a crime. The trial court ordered Hendrickson to file tax returns for the years in question but,

"prohibited [the Hendricksons] from filing any tax return, amended return, form ... or other writing or paper with the IRS that is based on the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code" — a book authored by Hendrickson's husband — "that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws."

Despite this court direct order above, Hendrickson, nevertheless claimed that she received no income precisely on the basis of the foregoing argument from her husband's book. The trial court then charged Hendrickson with criminal contempt of court. The jury at the criminal trial found Hendrickson guilty of criminal contempt of court and the trial court sentenced Hendrickson to eighteen months in prison, plus twelve months of supervised probation. This court of appeals upheld the conviction and sentence against Hendrickson.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD C. SHAW, et. al. Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-0220-KJD-NJK.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.

September 28, 2018.​

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5941280540385788951&q="Pete+Hendrickson"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. CLICK ON THE PRECEDING LINK AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE END OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH.

This case involved a student of Pete Henderson, named Richard Shaw, who lost his case because he relied on the fraud of Pete Henderson to the effect that wages for services are not taxable as income. That case reads.

"The basis for Richard Shaw reporting zero income on their returns were the ideas in the book Cracking the Code, by Pete Hendrickson, effectively stating that income from services is not taxable. This argument has repeatedly been found by courts to be frivolous."

READ THE PENALTIES THE TAX PROTESTER PAID FOR RELYING ON THE FRAUD OF PETE HENDRICKSON. CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE.


810 F.3d 1086 (2016)UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Peter A. GIAMBALVO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-1136.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 25, 2015.Filed: January 13, 2016.​

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15804911675237938635&q="Peter+Hendrickson"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. CLICK ON THE PRECEDING LINK AND SCROLL DOWN TO PARAGRAPH 9 and 10.

This case involved a student of Pete Hendrickson, named Peter Giambolvo, who lost his case and went to prison for relying on the fraud of Pete Hendrickson to the effect that wages for services are not taxable as income. that case reads,

"Giambalvo testified that he filed tax returns stating that his wages and other income were zero after reading Peter Hendrickson's book, Cracking the Code. The book asserts that only income from the federal government is subject to income tax. Giambalvo stated that Hendrickson's book was consistent with what he had read from materials that the Institute of Global Prosperity had published stating that the income tax could only be applied to federal employees or those who get income from the federal government. Giambalvo testified that "[t]he only difference between Peter Hendrickson and the others is that he says that if your employer is improperly withholding money from you, you can get it back."

Giambalvo was indicted on March 5, 2014, and charged with one count of corruptly obstructing or impeding the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) ("Count 1"), and eight counts of willfully making and subscribing a false U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) ("Counts 2-9"). The jury found Giambalvo guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced Giambalvo to 16 months' imprisonment.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s),
v.
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON, Defendant(s).

Case No. 06-11753.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

June 10, 2010.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6175348022293099041&q="Peter+Hendrickson"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. CLICK ON THE PRECEDING TEXT.

In this case, Pete and Doreen Hendrickson fraudulently obtained a $20,380.96 income tax refund from the IRS by fraudulently claiming that they received no income for the years 2002 and 2008, despite that their W2's for those years show joint income of roughly $59,000 and $60,000 respectively for those years. In 2006, the United State found out and sued the Hendricksons civilly for a refund of that refund.

In early 2007 the court ordered the Hendricksons to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and forbade them from
"filing any tax return or amended return with the IRS that is based on the claim that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws.

Later "On May 2, 2007, this Court entered an Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction. [Docket #34.] Judgment was entered against Defendants jointly in the amount of $10,152.96, plus interest for the 2002 tax year, and $10,228.00, plus interest, for the 2003 tax year. This Court also made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in granting injunctive relief, including a finding that "Defendants' contention that withholding applies only to government workers is frivolous and false,"

The Hendricksons refused to amend their tax returns, refused to pay their judgment and refused to cooperate with post judgment discovery. Ultimately, the Hendricksons lost the case and were ordered as follows

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants are in contempt for failing to comply with orders of this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $100.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 as ordered by this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $50.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to submit complete and accurate responses to the post-judgment discovery requests as ordered by this Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have not filed the amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and submitted complete and accurate responses to the post-judgment discovery requests within 14 days of the imposition of per diem fines, Defendants are hereby ordered to be incarcerated until they comply with this Order.
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#43
to further muddy this issue, supremes have ruled there can be 2 states acting as sovereigns, and can be in competition with each other closing little joeys loophole defense

they had already ruled prior that the us of friggin' a is a sovereign, and that states are also sovereigns to a point, with states being subject to the crown or feds who is the ultimate 'ruler of slaves'.

so to make this real simple, a sovereign man is usurped by any higher power, whether that be local, state, or fed. A pecking order if you will, with the individual being the lowest in the pecking order.

if you have a case of a local city or county making some rule impacting you, your recourse is first the next higher or state. (there are more, but brevity demands otherwise here) The state, as the next higher sovereign, will decide if the locals are acting outside of state laws. If not, then the locals get the green light to screw you for the good of all of course. You decide that is bs, and go all in, appealing that to the next higher, a regional fed player. Same thing, fed looks at it and states it is allowable in fed rules so you are taken out again. You have zillions of dough at your disposal and decide one more trip to the well. Only on submission to the supremes on appeal, the self appointed sovereign god from on high, tells you to pound sand. The case isn't worth hearing at that level. So the prior decisions are upheld and you are done.

It is a laddered sovereignty.

A person can declare themselves a sovereign man and this would be true, providing he does not leave out the part about 'subject to'





-----------

Sovereignty

October 26, 2018 by: Content Team

The term “sovereignty” is used to refer to a state’s ability to govern either itself or another state. It can also be used to describe a supreme influence or authority. For example, sovereignty is used to describe the power that a monarchy has over its people, or that a state has with regard to creating its own laws. To explore this concept, consider the following sovereignty definition.

Definition of Sovereignty
Noun
  1. The power that a state holds, which enables it to govern itself or another state.
  2. The power or authority of someone in a royal or otherwise authoritative position.
Origin
1300-1350 Middle English (soverainte)
Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty is the idea that the government’s right to rule is granted by the people it governs. Popular sovereignty challenged the commonly held belief of those in charge that their ability to rule was given to them as a gift from God. This concept was known as divine intervention. In the mid-19th century, popular sovereignty was even used to determine whether new U.S. territories would be permitted to partake in slavery.
State and National Sovereignty
When considering state and national sovereignty, these ideas are best split up into two concepts: dual federalism and cooperative federalism.
Dual Federalism
Dual federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is an arrangement that is made between the states and the federal government that the states are free to govern themselves however they choose, free from government intervention. Examples of powers that are exclusive to the government under dual federalism include, but are not limited to:
  • Creating laws with regard to money (e.g. coining it, borrowing it, prosecuting counterfeiting, etc.)
  • The ability to declare war
  • Making rules with regard to the military
  • Admitting a new state
  • Creating and collecting on taxes
By contrast, the powers the states can enjoy without government interference under dual federalism include, but are not limited to, creating and upholding laws related to:
  • Education
  • Banking
  • Property
  • Public Health
  • Elections
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is the idea of state, local and federal governments all coming together to solve a problem, rather than creating their own separate policies. In cooperative federalism, the governments decide among themselves which branch of government is going to be responsible for handling a particular problem. That government will then create the appropriate policy in that area.
Cooperative federalism is also referred to as “new federalism.” This because cooperative federalism brings governments together as partners, rather than leaving them as separate entities who can do their own thing.
Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the law of the land in the U.S. State courts are bound by it, and the federal laws that are created under it hold supreme rule, or sovereignty. In cases where state and federal law come into conflict, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence. However, no matter what the state or federal governments may want to do, they can only do it if the Constitution gives them the permission to do so.
A Sovereignty Example Involving Hitmen
An example of sovereignty can be found in the matter of Heath v. Alabama, which was decided in 1985. Here, the Petitioner, Larry Heath, had hired two men to kill his pregnant wife in August 1981. At the time of the murder, Heath and his wife Rebecca were living in Alabama, a short distance away from the Georgia border. Heath led the men from Georgia to his house so they could commit the murder. Rebecca’s body was later found on the side of the road in Georgia. Investigations were then launched in both states.
In September 1981, authorities in Georgia arrested Heath for his wife’s murder. Upon his arrest, Heath confessed to the crime and waived his Miranda rights. He plead guilty in February 1982. He was then indicted in Alabama in early May 1982. Heath tried to have the case thrown out on the grounds that he was protected from double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, but the trial judge denied Heath’s request.
In Georgia, Heath had been sentenced to life in prison. However, in Alabama, his trial resulted in a death sentence. He appealed Alabama’s decision, but both the Alabama Court of Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the sentence. He thereafter appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case in October 1985.
The question the Supreme Court then had to answer was whether an individual could be tried by two states for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy prevents the federal government or any state from trying a person more than once for the same crime. The Court had previously ruled that double jeopardy could not be invoked if the authority to prosecute a crime came from two separate sources, such as a federal sovereignty and a state sovereignty. However, this case before them was a new one: this was an example of sovereignty in two states coming into conflict with each other.
The Court ultimately found that each state was its own sovereign. Therefore, the prosecution of a crime in one state could not stop another state from prosecuting the same crime. The murder of Rebecca, which occurred in Alabama, and the disposal of her body, which occurred in Georgia, could be tried by both states at the same time. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, saying:
“The sole remaining question upon which we granted certiorari is whether the dual sovereignty doctrine permits successive prosecutions under the laws of different States which otherwise would be held to ‘subject [the defendant] for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy.’ (citation omitted) Although we have not previously so held, we believe the answer to this query is inescapable.
The dual sovereignty doctrine, as originally articulated and consistently applied by this Court, compels the conclusion that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences.'”
Related Legal Terms and Issues
  • Double Jeopardy – The Fifth Amendment protection from being tried for the same crime twice, and from being compelled to testify against oneself.
  • Indict – To formally charge someone with a serious crime.
  • Miranda Rights – An explanation of a person’s rights under the law, typically read to the individual upon his arrest.

https://legaldictionary.net/sovereignty/
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#44
Sovereignty Law and Legal Definition

Sovereignty refers to having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It is the supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereignty/


sovereignty

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Sovereignty
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
sovereignty
in UK constitutional law, the doctrine that the monarch in Parliament is competent to make or unmake any law whatsoever and cannot be challenged in any court. The doctrine developed historically, its first major enunciation being in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Possible limitations are:
  1. (i) the ACTS OF UNION;
  2. (ii) the inability of Parliament to bind its successors;
  3. (iii) territorial competence, being a practical limitation rather than a legal one.

By far the most significant restraint is found in the law of the EUROPEAN UNION, which asserts its supremacy in the ever-expanding matters subject to the Treaties. Enforcement of an Act of Parliament has been enjoined on the basis of conflict with European law. The creation of the devolved Scottish Parliament has brought about a conventional restraint of Parliament exercising its powers on matters within the devolved powers:

see SEWEL MOTION.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
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. Sec. 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. Sec. 208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#45
just for giggles and to mess with this further, while further making the point of them doing what they want whenever they want,

above you saw the case where 2 'sovereigns' or states were arguing over who gets to pick over the bones of a lower sovereign, a slave
the supremes take the case and tell them they both can have at the guy, which supposedly was against this cherished constitution of double jeopardy for the slaves.

now with the election, some states bring an action against a 'equal' sovereign. The supremes toss it for lack of standing. Wherein the sovereigns weren't allowed to argue with each other because they were equals, even though it was for the highest office in the land. One equal was whining about the procedures of another equal. Even though the actions of the one, impacts the other significantly.

which is interesting in and of itself, because all roads lead to the supremes and the supposed constitution. There was/is no other recourse for a player that high up in the sovereign food chain. Why then were they denied standing, yet the supremes would hear the case of some slave committing a crime in one state and dumping some evidence in another, while ruling it was sovereign on sovereign.

basically stating that we are not a nation of laws, but a nation of opinions and suppositions by the powers that be.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#46
to further muddy this issue, supremes have ruled there can be 2 states acting as sovereigns, and can be in competition with each other closing little joeys loophole defense

they had already ruled prior that the us of friggin' a is a sovereign, and that states are also sovereigns to a point, with states being subject to the crown or feds who is the ultimate 'ruler of slaves'.

so to make this real simple, a sovereign man is usurped by any higher power, whether that be local, state, or fed. A pecking order if you will, with the individual being the lowest in the pecking order.

if you have a case of a local city or county making some rule impacting you, your recourse is first the next higher or state. (there are more, but brevity demands otherwise here) The state, as the next higher sovereign, will decide if the locals are acting outside of state laws. If not, then the locals get the green light to screw you for the good of all of course. You decide that is bs, and go all in, appealing that to the next higher, a regional fed player. Same thing, fed looks at it and states it is allowable in fed rules so you are taken out again. You have zillions of dough at your disposal and decide one more trip to the well. Only on submission to the supremes on appeal, the self appointed sovereign god from on high, tells you to pound sand. The case isn't worth hearing at that level. So the prior decisions are upheld and you are done.

It is a laddered sovereignty.

A person can declare themselves a sovereign man and this would be true, providing he does not leave out the part about 'subject to'





-----------

Sovereignty

October 26, 2018 by: Content Team

The term “sovereignty” is used to refer to a state’s ability to govern either itself or another state. It can also be used to describe a supreme influence or authority. For example, sovereignty is used to describe the power that a monarchy has over its people, or that a state has with regard to creating its own laws. To explore this concept, consider the following sovereignty definition.

Definition of Sovereignty
Noun
  1. The power that a state holds, which enables it to govern itself or another state.
  2. The power or authority of someone in a royal or otherwise authoritative position.
Origin
1300-1350 Middle English (soverainte)
Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty is the idea that the government’s right to rule is granted by the people it governs. Popular sovereignty challenged the commonly held belief of those in charge that their ability to rule was given to them as a gift from God. This concept was known as divine intervention. In the mid-19th century, popular sovereignty was even used to determine whether new U.S. territories would be permitted to partake in slavery.
State and National Sovereignty
When considering state and national sovereignty, these ideas are best split up into two concepts: dual federalism and cooperative federalism.
Dual Federalism
Dual federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is an arrangement that is made between the states and the federal government that the states are free to govern themselves however they choose, free from government intervention. Examples of powers that are exclusive to the government under dual federalism include, but are not limited to:
  • Creating laws with regard to money (e.g. coining it, borrowing it, prosecuting counterfeiting, etc.)
  • The ability to declare war
  • Making rules with regard to the military
  • Admitting a new state
  • Creating and collecting on taxes
By contrast, the powers the states can enjoy without government interference under dual federalism include, but are not limited to, creating and upholding laws related to:
  • Education
  • Banking
  • Property
  • Public Health
  • Elections
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is the idea of state, local and federal governments all coming together to solve a problem, rather than creating their own separate policies. In cooperative federalism, the governments decide among themselves which branch of government is going to be responsible for handling a particular problem. That government will then create the appropriate policy in that area.
Cooperative federalism is also referred to as “new federalism.” This because cooperative federalism brings governments together as partners, rather than leaving them as separate entities who can do their own thing.
Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the law of the land in the U.S. State courts are bound by it, and the federal laws that are created under it hold supreme rule, or sovereignty. In cases where state and federal law come into conflict, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence. However, no matter what the state or federal governments may want to do, they can only do it if the Constitution gives them the permission to do so.
A Sovereignty Example Involving Hitmen
An example of sovereignty can be found in the matter of Heath v. Alabama, which was decided in 1985. Here, the Petitioner, Larry Heath, had hired two men to kill his pregnant wife in August 1981. At the time of the murder, Heath and his wife Rebecca were living in Alabama, a short distance away from the Georgia border. Heath led the men from Georgia to his house so they could commit the murder. Rebecca’s body was later found on the side of the road in Georgia. Investigations were then launched in both states.
In September 1981, authorities in Georgia arrested Heath for his wife’s murder. Upon his arrest, Heath confessed to the crime and waived his Miranda rights. He plead guilty in February 1982. He was then indicted in Alabama in early May 1982. Heath tried to have the case thrown out on the grounds that he was protected from double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, but the trial judge denied Heath’s request.
In Georgia, Heath had been sentenced to life in prison. However, in Alabama, his trial resulted in a death sentence. He appealed Alabama’s decision, but both the Alabama Court of Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the sentence. He thereafter appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case in October 1985.
The question the Supreme Court then had to answer was whether an individual could be tried by two states for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy prevents the federal government or any state from trying a person more than once for the same crime. The Court had previously ruled that double jeopardy could not be invoked if the authority to prosecute a crime came from two separate sources, such as a federal sovereignty and a state sovereignty. However, this case before them was a new one: this was an example of sovereignty in two states coming into conflict with each other.
The Court ultimately found that each state was its own sovereign. Therefore, the prosecution of a crime in one state could not stop another state from prosecuting the same crime. The murder of Rebecca, which occurred in Alabama, and the disposal of her body, which occurred in Georgia, could be tried by both states at the same time. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, saying:
“The sole remaining question upon which we granted certiorari is whether the dual sovereignty doctrine permits successive prosecutions under the laws of different States which otherwise would be held to ‘subject [the defendant] for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy.’ (citation omitted) Although we have not previously so held, we believe the answer to this query is inescapable.
The dual sovereignty doctrine, as originally articulated and consistently applied by this Court, compels the conclusion that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences.'”
Related Legal Terms and Issues
  • Double Jeopardy – The Fifth Amendment protection from being tried for the same crime twice, and from being compelled to testify against oneself.
  • Indict – To formally charge someone with a serious crime.
  • Miranda Rights – An explanation of a person’s rights under the law, typically read to the individual upon his arrest.

https://legaldictionary.net/sovereignty/

Hello Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: to further muddy this issue, supremes have ruled there can be 2 states acting as sovereigns, and can be in competition with each other closing little joeys loophole defense

MY RESPONSE: Got a case name and or link to this case? I'd love to read it.

YOUR COMMENT: they had already ruled prior that the us of friggin' a is a sovereign, and that states are also sovereigns to a point, with states being subject to the crown or feds who is the ultimate 'ruler of slaves'.

MY RESPONSE: It appears that you are referring to dual sovereignty. This concept is explained in many of the cases in the very first post at the top of this thread. Read them. They are very short. Under dual sovereignty, the states are supreme as to all legal subjects not delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution, but the United States is supreme as to all legal subjects delegated to it by the states in the United States Constitution. THAT MEANS THAT THE STATES ARE SUPREME AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS AND THE UNITED STATES IS SUPREME AS TO ALL FEDERAL LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS. So, the question of which sovereign is supreme over the other depends on what legal subject you are talking about. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALWAYS ON TOP! MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE ON TOP! https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/

Under this system of dual sovereignty, a legal subject is supposed to be regulated either by the federal government OR by state governments, BUT NOT BY BOTH. In the unlikely event that the federal government and the state governments purport to regulate the very same subject AND in the unlikely event that the federal and state law are in direct conflict with one another AND ONLY IN THOSE EVENTS, THEN AND ONLY THEN DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE COME INTO PLAY TO PUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THE TOP. But, when there is no conflict between the federal and state law on the same exact legal subject WHICH IS ALMOST ALL THE TIME, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY. THIS MAKES THE STATES SUPREME AS TO ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND MAKES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPREME AS TO ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS DELEGATED TO IT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The end result is dual sovereignty, with EACH SOVEREIGN being supreme and the final word, depending on which legal subject you are talking about.

YOUR COMMENT: so to make this real simple, a sovereign man is usurped by any higher power, whether that be local, state, or fed. A pecking order if you will, with the individual being the lowest in the pecking order.

MY RESPONSE: In a republic like ours, there is no such thing as a sovereign individual. So, no individual has any sovereignty to be "usurped" by a higher power. In a republic like ours, THERE ARE ONLY TWO (2) SOVEREIGNS, THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS IT! This is explained in several of the cases in the very first post at the top of this thread. Read them. They are short. The individual IS NOT SOVEREIGN. Likewise, the city and county government ARE NOT SOVEREIGN EITHER. Cities and counties only have the powers that the states allow then to have. Nothing more. THAT IS NOT SOVEREIGNTY.

YOUR COMMENT: if you have a case of a local city or county making some rule impacting you, your recourse is first the next higher or state. (there are more, but brevity demands otherwise here) The state, as the next higher sovereign, will decide if the locals are acting outside of state laws. If not, then the locals get the green light to screw you for the good of all of course. You decide that is bs, and go all in, appealing that to the next higher, a regional fed player. Same thing, fed looks at it and states it is allowable in fed rules so you are taken out again. You have zillions of dough at your disposal and decide one more trip to the well. Only on submission to the supremes on appeal, the self appointed sovereign god from on high, tells you to pound sand. The case isn't worth hearing at that level. So the prior decisions are upheld and you are done.

It is a laddered sovereignty.

MY RESPONSE: We have a system of dual sovereignty. That means there are only TWO sovereigns. No more. One sovereign is the state. The other sovereign is the United States. As to those legal subjects not delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, THE STATES ARE SUPREME AND THE FINAL WORD. As to those legal subject delegated to the federal government by the states, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPREME AND THE FINAL WORD. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/

THIS MEANS WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO (2) SEPARATE LADDERS AVAILABLE TO US DEPENDING ON THE LEGAL SUBJECT INVOLVED. If the behavior about which we complain relates to a legal subject not delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, then we sue in our local state court and work our way up the state court legal system to the state supreme court WHICH HAS THE FINAL WORD. If and only if the behavior about which we complain relates to a legal subject delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution or a right protected by the same, then we sue in our local federal court and work our way up the federal court system to the U.S. Supreme Court WHICH HAS THE FINAL WORD. Believe it or not, we could simultaneously climb both ladders at the same time provided we sued only on state law grounds in state court and provided we sued only on federal law grounds in federal court. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/

YOUR COMMENT: A person can declare themselves a sovereign man and this would be true, providing he does not leave out the part about 'subject to'

MY RESPONSE: A person can declare himself an inter-dimensional, trans-sexual alien from Nebula, but that will not make it so. In our republic, no individual is sovereign regardless of what he "declares" about himself. But, it is true that every person in our republic is "subject to" the law of the TWO sovereigns which do exist in our republic.


-----------

THE PROPOSITION: Sovereignty

October 26, 2018 by: Content Team

The term “sovereignty” is used to refer to a state’s ability to govern either itself or another state. It can also be used to describe a supreme influence or authority. For example, sovereignty is used to describe the power that a monarchy has over its people, or that a state has with regard to creating its own laws. To explore this concept, consider the following sovereignty definition.
Definition of Sovereignty
Noun
  1. The power that a state holds, which enables it to govern itself or another state.
  2. The power or authority of someone in a royal or otherwise authoritative position.
Origin
1300-1350 Middle English (soverainte)


MY RESPONSE: This is only partly correct. To the extent that this means that the federal government governs the states, this is false. The federal government does not govern the states. The federal government governs ONLY THOSE LEGAL SUBJECTS EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO IT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, NOT THE STATES THEMSELVES. In all other respects the states are sovereign and govern themselves. If this were not the case, the states would have surrendered their sovereignty and joined the union. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/

Further, in a monarchy, the nation or state is ruled by a single person. That means that the Monarch IS THE GOVERNMENT. Because the Monarch IS THE GOVERNMENT, the Monarch IS THE SOVEREIGN. But, in our republic, "We the People", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE rule ourselves through the election process. So, in our republic "We the People", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. So, in our republic "We the People", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE THE SOVEREIGN. A Monarchy is the only form of government on Earth whereby an individual is a sovereign (a government). But, in our republic, no individual is the sovereign (the government). HOWEVER, ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE SOVEREIGN BECAUSE ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY AS WHOLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT (THE SOVEREIGN).



THE PROPOSITION: Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty is the idea that the government’s right to rule is granted by the people it governs. Popular sovereignty challenged the commonly held belief of those in charge that their ability to rule was given to them as a gift from God. This concept was known as divine intervention. In the mid-19th century, popular sovereignty was even used to determine whether new U.S. territories would be permitted to partake in slavery.

MY RESPONSE: This is largely correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

THE PROPOSITION: State and National Sovereignty
When considering state and national sovereignty, these ideas are best split up into two concepts: dual federalism and cooperative federalism.
Dual Federalism
Dual federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is an arrangement that is made between the states and the federal government that the states are free to govern themselves however they choose, free from government intervention. Examples of powers that are exclusive to the government under dual federalism include, but are not limited to:
  • Creating laws with regard to money (e.g. coining it, borrowing it, prosecuting counterfeiting, etc.)
  • The ability to declare war
  • Making rules with regard to the military
  • Admitting a new state
  • Creating and collecting on taxes
By contrast, the powers the states can enjoy without government interference under dual federalism include, but are not limited to, creating and upholding laws related to:
  • Education
  • Banking
  • Property
  • Public Health
  • Elections

MY RESPONSE: This is partly correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/

THE PROPOSITION: Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism, as a concept of state and national sovereignty, is the idea of state, local and federal governments all coming together to solve a problem, rather than creating their own separate policies. In cooperative federalism, the governments decide among themselves which branch of government is going to be responsible for handling a particular problem. That government will then create the appropriate policy in that area.
Cooperative federalism is also referred to as “new federalism.” This because cooperative federalism brings governments together as partners, rather than leaving them as separate entities who can do their own thing.

MY RESPONSE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_federalism
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/.


Because of the tenth amendment, the federal government cannot legally regulate legal subjects reserved for the states to regulate by the U.S. Constitution. In order to get around this legal barrier and do it anyway, the federal government effectively bribes the states to comply with federal requests by offering compliant states grants of federal money. Conversely, the federal government threatens to withhold (and does withhold) federal money from states which do not comply with such federal requests..

A classic example of this is speed limits, uniform signs, highway design, widths, grades slopes, shoulders, rails, and other engineering specifications of highways and roadways, ALL OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION UNDER TENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. A state which complies with all these federal requests for the foregoing regulations OF STATE LAW SUBJECT MATTERS receives grants of federal money. Conversely, states which do not comply with all such federal requests are deprived of such federal grants of money, despite that citizens of such non-compliant states paid taxes to the federal government which money comprises a portion of the federal money withheld.

Calling such bribery and extortion "cooperative federalism" is like calling the WWII Japanese citizens of Hiroshima "cooperative nuclear volunteers". But such ABUSIVE federal tactics have been held Constitutional by the courts on the grounds of the "tax and spend" clause of the U.S. Constitution. What "cooperative federalism" does conclusively prove, however, is that the federal government KNOWS that it can not get around the tenth amendment unless the states grant it permission (almost always in exchange for federal money)..

THE PROPOSITION: Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the law of the land in the U.S. State courts are bound by it, and the federal laws that are created under it hold supreme rule, or sovereignty. In cases where state and federal law come into conflict, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence. However, no matter what the state or federal governments may want to do, they can only do it if the Constitution gives them the permission to do so.

MY RESPONSE: Under this system of dual sovereignty, a legal subject is supposed to be regulated either by the federal government OR by state governments, BUT NOT BY BOTH. In the unlikely event that the federal government and the state governments purport to regulate the very same subject AND in the unlikely event that the federal and state law are in direct conflict with one another AND ONLY IN THOSE EVENTS, THEN AND ONLY THEN DOES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE COME INTO PLAY TO PUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THE TOP. But, when there is no conflict between the federal and state law on the same exact legal subject WHICH IS ALMOST ALL THE TIME, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY. THIS MAKES THE STATES SUPREME AS TO ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND MAKES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPREME AS TO ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS DELEGATED TO IT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The end result is dual sovereignty, with EACH SOVEREIGN being supreme and the final word, depending on which legal subject you are talking about.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tenth-amendment/


PROPOSITION: A Sovereignty Example Involving Hitmen
An example of sovereignty can be found in the matter of Heath v. Alabama, which was decided in 1985. Here, the Petitioner, Larry Heath, had hired two men to kill his pregnant wife in August 1981. At the time of the murder, Heath and his wife Rebecca were living in Alabama, a short distance away from the Georgia border. Heath led the men from Georgia to his house so they could commit the murder. Rebecca’s body was later found on the side of the road in Georgia. Investigations were then launched in both states.
In September 1981, authorities in Georgia arrested Heath for his wife’s murder. Upon his arrest, Heath confessed to the crime and waived his Miranda rights. He plead guilty in February 1982. He was then indicted in Alabama in early May 1982. Heath tried to have the case thrown out on the grounds that he was protected from double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment, but the trial judge denied Heath’s request.
In Georgia, Heath had been sentenced to life in prison. However, in Alabama, his trial resulted in a death sentence. He appealed Alabama’s decision, but both the Alabama Court of Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the sentence. He thereafter appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case in October 1985.
The question the Supreme Court then had to answer was whether an individual could be tried by two states for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy prevents the federal government or any state from trying a person more than once for the same crime. The Court had previously ruled that double jeopardy could not be invoked if the authority to prosecute a crime came from two separate sources, such as a federal sovereignty and a state sovereignty. However, this case before them was a new one: this was an example of sovereignty in two states coming into conflict with each other.
The Court ultimately found that each state was its own sovereign. Therefore, the prosecution of a crime in one state could not stop another state from prosecuting the same crime. The murder of Rebecca, which occurred in Alabama, and the disposal of her body, which occurred in Georgia, could be tried by both states at the same time. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, saying:
“The sole remaining question upon which we granted certiorari is whether the dual sovereignty doctrine permits successive prosecutions under the laws of different States which otherwise would be held to ‘subject [the defendant] for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy.’ (citation omitted) Although we have not previously so held, we believe the answer to this query is inescapable.
The dual sovereignty doctrine, as originally articulated and consistently applied by this Court, compels the conclusion that successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences.'”]

MY RESPONSE: The text above is a fair characterization of the case and its holding. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13502780088763338920&q="Heath+v.+Alabama"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Related Legal Terms and Issues
  • Double Jeopardy – The Fifth Amendment protection from being tried for the same crime twice, and from being compelled to testify against oneself.
  • Indict – To formally charge someone with a serious crime.
  • Miranda Rights – An explanation of a person’s rights under the law, typically read to the individual upon his arrest.

https://legaldictionary.net/sovereignty/

MY RESPONSE: Party correct. Only a grand jury can issue an indictment. See the third full paragraph here. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/what-is-a-grand-jury-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-215458#:~:text=Only a grand jury can issue an indictment,,committing a felony pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#47

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#49
Sovereignty Law and Legal Definition

Sovereignty refers to having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It is the supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereignty/


sovereignty

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Sovereignty
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
sovereignty
in UK constitutional law, the doctrine that the monarch in Parliament is competent to make or unmake any law whatsoever and cannot be challenged in any court. The doctrine developed historically, its first major enunciation being in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Possible limitations are:
  1. (i) the ACTS OF UNION;
  2. (ii) the inability of Parliament to bind its successors;
  3. (iii) territorial competence, being a practical limitation rather than a legal one.

By far the most significant restraint is found in the law of the EUROPEAN UNION, which asserts its supremacy in the ever-expanding matters subject to the Treaties. Enforcement of an Act of Parliament has been enjoined on the basis of conflict with European law. The creation of the devolved Scottish Parliament has brought about a conventional restraint of Parliament exercising its powers on matters within the devolved powers:

see SEWEL MOTION.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
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. Sec. 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. Sec. 208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty
Hello Scorpio,

THE PROPOSITION: Sovereignty Law and Legal Definition
Sovereignty refers to having supreme, independent AUTHORITY OVER A GEOGRAPHIC AREA, such as a TERRITORY. It is the supreme and independent power or authority IN A GOVERNMENT as possessed or claimed BY A STATE or community.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereignty/


MY RESPONSE: This definition is correct. A sovereign (a government) has authority over a TERRITORY. and it is the supreme authority IN GOVERNMENT as possessed BY A STATE. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A SOVEREIGN (A SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER A TERRITORY AND THE SUPREME AUTHORITY IN GOVERNMENT AS POSSESSED BY A STATE). DOES AND INDIVIDUAL DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

THE PROPOSITION: sovereignty
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Sovereignty
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which AN INDEPENDENT STATE is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; THE INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE, combined with the right and power of regulating ITS internal affairs without FOREIGN interference.


MY RESPONSE: This definition is correct. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A SOVEREIGN (THE POWER OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE, THE INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE WITH THE RIGHT AND POWER TO REGULATE ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS WITHOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE). DOES AND INDIVIDUAL DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS?


PROPOSITION: Sovereignty is the power OF A STATE to do everything necessary to GOVERN ITSELF [not"himself"], such as MAKING, EXECUTING AND APPLYING LAWS; imposing and COLLECTING TAXES; making WAR and peace; and forming TREATIES or engaging in COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

MY RESPONSE: This definition is correct. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A SOVEREIGN (THE POWER OF A STATE, TO GOVERN ITSELF, TO MAKE, EXECUTE AND APPLY LAWS. TO IMPOSE AND COLLECT TAXES, TO MAKE WAR, ENTER INTO TREATIES AND TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS). DOES AND INDIVIDUAL DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

PROPOSITION: The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of EXTERNAL sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of INTERNAL sovereignty, such as the power to REGULATE the acquisition and transfer of PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS.. The sovereignty OF A STATE is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

MY RESPONSE: This definition is correct but incomplete. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A SOVEREIGN (THE POWER TO DEPORT UNDESIRABLE PERSONS, THE POWER TO REGULATE THE ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS.). DOES AND INDIVIDUAL DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

THE SECTION ON UK/EU SOVEREIGNTY AND THE UK/EU CONSTITUTION IS OMITTED.

see SEWEL MOTION.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
PROPOSITION: 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. Sec. 207.
2. Abstractedly, SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE BODY OF THE NATION and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation [to the government].
3. When analysed, SOVEREIGNTY IS 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 [FOR] 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 [left-over] SOVEREIGNTY OF EACH STATE, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people [A PLURAL TERM] OF THE STATE. (q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereignty


MY RESPONSE: This definition is correct. NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A SOVEREIGN (THE POWER TO MAKE, EXECUTE AND APPLY THE LAW, TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES , TO MAKE WAR OR INTER INTO TREATIES OR ALLIANCES OR ENGAGE IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, HAVE A LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCH TO JUDGE DISPUTES AND PUNISH FOR CRIMES). DOES AND INDIVIDUAL DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS?

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#50
just for giggles and to mess with this further, while further making the point of them doing what they want whenever they want,

above you saw the case where 2 'sovereigns' or states were arguing over who gets to pick over the bones of a lower sovereign, a slave
the supremes take the case and tell them they both can have at the guy, which supposedly was against this cherished constitution of double jeopardy for the slaves.

now with the election, some states bring an action against a 'equal' sovereign. The supremes toss it for lack of standing. Wherein the sovereigns weren't allowed to argue with each other because they were equals, even though it was for the highest office in the land. One equal was whining about the procedures of another equal. Even though the actions of the one, impacts the other significantly.

which is interesting in and of itself, because all roads lead to the supremes and the supposed constitution. There was/is no other recourse for a player that high up in the sovereign food chain. Why then were they denied standing, yet the supremes would hear the case of some slave committing a crime in one state and dumping some evidence in another, while ruling it was sovereign on sovereign.

basically stating that we are not a nation of laws, but a nation of opinions and suppositions by the powers that be.
Hello Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: just for giggles and to mess with this further, while further making the point of them doing what they want whenever they want,
Above you saw the case where 2 'sovereigns' or states were arguing over who gets to pick over the bones of a lower sovereign, a slave
the supremes take the case and tell them they both can have at the guy, which supposedly was against this cherished constitution of double jeopardy for the slaves.

MY RESPONSE" First, the guy who had his pregnant wife kidnapped in Alabama and shot in the head in Georgia WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN. THIS IS BECAUSE HE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN OUR REPUBLIC, ONLY A STATE OR NATION CAN BE SOVEREIGN (SEE PROOF ABOVE IN YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS).

Second, the holding of the case was that the "Double Jeopardy" clause U.S. Constitution DOES NOT PROHIBIT SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS BY TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STATES WHERE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN BOTH STATES.. The "Double Jeopardy" clause of the U.S. Constitution ONLY PROHIBITS SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS BY THE SAME STATE FOR THE SAME CRIME OR BY A STATE AND THEN AGAIN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAME CRIME. The "Double Jeopardy" clause of the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT PROHIBIT SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS BY TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STATES WHERE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN BOTH STATES. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13502780088763338920&q="Heath+v.+Alabama"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

YOUR COMMENT: Now with the election, some states bring an action against a 'equal' sovereign. The supremes toss it for lack of standing. Wherein the sovereigns weren't allowed to argue with each other because they were equals,

MY RESPONSE: In the election case in which Texas sued Georgia, the Supreme Court DID NOT DISMISS THE CASE BECAUSE THESE TWO STATES WERE EQUAL, IT DISMISSED THE CASE BECAUSE TEXAS DID NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ELECTION LAWS OR THE ELECTION PRACTICES OCCURRING A THOUSAND MILES OUTSIDE ITS OWN BORDERS.

YOUR COMMENT: even though it was for the highest office in the land. One equal was whining about the procedures of another equal. Even though the actions of the one, impacts the other significantly.

MY RESPONSE: That claim is an often-parroted talking point. Nothing more. The Supreme Court (which was stacked with conservative justices) unanimously held that the claims of Texas were not "legally cognizable". As is explained below. That is correct.

Does California have a legally cognizable lawsuit against Texas for its act of shutting down all but one ballot drop box per county and then locating that single ballot drop box 60 miles away from all population centers? After all, that stunt insured that Republicans would maintain control of the Senate (for the time being) which negatively impacted Democrats in California (and in every other blue state)

Does New York have a legally cognizable lawsuit against Georgia for its act of secretly and illegally deleting 330,000 names off voter rolls in minority neighborhoods if the voter there did not respond to a mail inquiring into whether they still lived at the same address where they have lived for decades (as is proven by Georgia's OWN Department of Motor Vehicles records, United States Post Office records, utility company billing records and by the Georgia county's OWN property appraiser's office)? After all, that stunt insured that Republican Senatorial candidates in Georgia would get a second chance to win the election, a run-off with Democratic Senatorial candidates (rather than an outright Democratic Senatorial sweep on election day) and that stunt negatively impacted Democrats in New York (and in every other blue state).

Where does it all end?

YOUR COMMENT: What s interesting in and of itself, because all roads lead to the supremes and the supposed constitution. There was/is no other recourse for a player that high up in the sovereign food chain. Why then were they denied standing, yet the supremes would hear the case of some slave committing a crime in one state and dumping some evidence in another, while ruling it was sovereign on sovereign.

MY RESPONSE: The Supreme Court heard the Heath case because questions about "Double Jeopardy" clause rises to the level of Constitutional importance (because that is precisely where the "Double Jeopardy" clause is found). In contrast, while the U.S. Constitution contains a clause which permits states to sue one another (usually over borders disputes, and up-river water use//depletion/pollution), the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT contain a clause authorizing a state to sue another state over THE OTHER STATE'S ELECTION RESULTS, THE OTHER STATE'S ELECTION LAWS OR ITS ELECTION PROCEDURES.

LEGAL STRATEGY NOTE: The Supreme Court is not stupid. The Republicans are not stupid. The Republicans believed that the new Supreme Court (with three new Trump appointees) would reverse the election results in favor of Trump. But, Republicans also knew that Congress was scheduled to certify the election results in mid-December in favor of Biden. So, Republicans knew there was no time left for them to file a REAL lawsuit in federal district court, then appeal to the federal circuit courts of appeal and then appeal again to the Supreme Court of the United States (all of which would take months or years).

But, the Republicans also knew that there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution which gives the Supreme Court ORIGINAL jurisdiction to hear lawsuits between states. This means that such a case actually BEGINS at the Supreme Court, so that the case does not need to work its way up through the federal court chain to the Supreme Court (which takes months or years). REPUBLICANS KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE ONE AND ONLY WAY TO GET A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT in time to reverse the election results before Congress certified the vote in favor of Biden. So, Republicans had to PRETEND that the lawsuit was a dispute between two states for reasons of jurisdiction. The republicans had no other choice.

So, the Republicans made their lawsuit LOOK LIKE a suit between two carefully-selected states (both of which are run by Republicans) to get the case immediately before the Supreme Court. It was a brilliant plan! Republican Texas sues Republican Georgia to get the case before the Republican Supreme Court.

But, there was a problem, the Supreme Court knew that Texas suing Georgia was merely a sham to get the case before the Supreme Court before Congress certified the vote. The Supreme Court also knew that the real motive in filing the suit was to reverse the outcome of the election, not to challenge the voting laws or voting procedures of an entirely different state. To show Trump and the Republicans that they were not going to be a party to this RUSE (a fake "State v. State" sham), they correctly dismissed the case.

YOUR COMMENT: Basically stating that we are not a nation of laws, but a nation of opinions and suppositions by the powers that be

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The Supreme Court showed the American People that they are guardians of the Constitution FIRST and Republican partisan operatives SECOND. These justices are not stupid. They knew that the Republicans making their lawsuit LOOK LIKE a suit between two two states was merely a sham just to get the case before the Supreme Court before Biden was declared the winner. These justices knew that there was no REAL dispute between Texas and Georgia (BOTH ARE RUN BY REPUBLICANS) These justices knew that the Republicans were actually asking them to overturn the election (or give the Republicans a chance to overturn it themselves). These justices knew that the Republicans thought that the Supreme Court would go along with their false pretenses. But, it appears that this assumption insulted the integrity of these justices. These justices saw right through it and wanted nothing to do with it. The Supreme Court did exactly as it should under these false pretenses.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#51
had a long post all wrote up and sitting there all day, then pulled it before posting it re all of this

MY RESPONSE: A person can declare himself an inter-dimensional alien from Nebula, but that will not make it so.
prefect response, funny as heck
time for you to come out of your shell

I did read that case and understood it as well
it was quite simple, and the actual case of double dipping in the till was brought by the guy needing a noose,

but my point with that was the supremes taking that one on, sovereign on sovereign, and only that
the rest of it was just some dumbass slave looking for a loophole
this one should never have made it to the supremes at all as far as I am concerned, as to me it was cut and dry aok for both states
which was my point re that, they hear this one, a 2 bit case,

moving on to the election dissertation you put together,
don't really disagree with your synopsis, but do disagree with your conclusions

the constitution does in fact address elections, and who is to react and provide oversight
we have already stated that 'states' have primary control over elections,
but, and a big but, they do have oversight

this is my discussion re the supremes and whether or not they should react and hear it
to me, you are totally wrong in assuming they ruled correctly in this
it is spelled out very clearly

but as stated before, your visions of a legal and lawful amerika are far different from mine,
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#52
I am going to go with a more gentle way of tackling this over-reliance on case law to present a argument,

and that is you could not be more wrong in using that as your factual basis for all discussions,

that is the system protecting itself, all that was prior = all that is now

it has zero to do with right and wrong, but only a stern reliance on representations/opinions from the past

it is a completely improper stance to take and perpetuate IMO
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#53
I am going to go with a more gentle way of tackling this over-reliance on case law to present a argument,

and that is you could not be more wrong in using that as your factual basis for all discussions,

that is the system protecting itself, all that was prior = all that is now

it has zero to do with right and wrong, but only a stern reliance on representations/opinions from the past

it is a completely improper stance to take and perpetuate IMO
Hello Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: I am going to go with a more gentle way of tackling this over-reliance on case law to present a argument,

MY RESPONSE: OVER-RELIANCE ON CASE LAW? Heath v. Alabama (which you posted above) is the one and only case which appears in any of our discussions on this entire thread. Yes, I posted case law in my two opening comments defining sovereignty. But, those cases were not directed towards you and I did not debate them. Yes, CigarLover brought up the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case and I explained it to him,, but I never quoted it. Yes, I have provided CigarLover and jbeck57143 with case law on tax protester arguments (some of which I can no longer find). Yes, I have responded to (and agreed with) all of the legal definitions from legal dictionaries which you yourself posted above defining sovereignty. But, you and I are not engaged in some kind of "case law war" on this thread or elsewhere.

Regardless, if you are not going to rely on case law to resolve legal questions, what other law do you suggest we rely on to resolve legal questions? Is there something better than what all of the courts themselves use to resolve legal questions?

YOUR COMMENT: and that is you could not be more wrong in using that as your factual basis for all discussions,

MY RESPONSE: Well, case law contains all the relevant facts of a case and all of the applicable law which applies to those facts. Do you believe that there is a better source of the relevant facts and applicable law than what all of the courts use? Maybe the courts have had good reason for using case law over the past thousand years or so.

YOUR COMMENT: that is the system protecting itself,

MY RESPONSE: The system is not a party to any case. It has nothing to win or lose in any court dispute. The system only fears elections. Nothing else.

YOUR COMMENT: all that was prior = all that is now

MY RESPONSE: This is true. This legal principle is called "stare decisis". There is a presumption that every appellate case has been decided correctly. So, every lower court in the same jurisdiction is thereafter legally REQUIRED to follow that decision in cases with similar facts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis#:~:text=Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by,to the court and a ruling already issued.

YOUR COMMENT: it has zero to do with right and wrong, but only a stern reliance on representations/opinions from the past.

MY RESPONSE: I respectfully disagree with your premise that case law has zero to do with right and wrong, but you are 100% correct that case law is based on a stern reliance on representations/opinions (cases) from the past. That is what "stare decisis" means. But, of course, the rule of law in case law can be changed by statute. However, in my opinion, statutory changes to case law are often changes for the worse (because legislators' campaigns are financed by big money).

YOUR COMMENT: it is a completely improper stance to take and perpetuate IMO

MY RESPONSE: It is only improper to perpetuate if it is truly (and I mean truly) unjust. Having spent my last 40 years studying and practicing law (as it is actually practiced in the courts), I can assure you that most law (especially case law) is just and fair.

All My Very Best,

Snoop,
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#54
had a long post all wrote up and sitting there all day, then pulled it before posting it re all of this

prefect response, funny as heck
time for you to come out of your shell

I did read that case and understood it as well
it was quite simple, and the actual case of double dipping in the till was brought by the guy needing a noose,

but my point with that was the supremes taking that one on, sovereign on sovereign, and only that
the rest of it was just some dumbass slave looking for a loophole
this one should never have made it to the supremes at all as far as I am concerned, as to me it was cut and dry aok for both states
which was my point re that, they hear this one, a 2 bit case,

moving on to the election dissertation you put together,
don't really disagree with your synopsis, but do disagree with your conclusions

the constitution does in fact address elections, and who is to react and provide oversight
we have already stated that 'states' have primary control over elections,
but, and a big but, they do have oversight

this is my discussion re the supremes and whether or not they should react and hear it
to me, you are totally wrong in assuming they ruled correctly in this
it is spelled out very clearly

but as stated before, your visions of a legal and lawful amerika are far different from mine,
Hello Again, my friend,

YOUR COMMENT: had a long post all wrote up and sitting there all day, then pulled it before posting it re all of this

MY RESPONSE: That's too bad. I truly enjoy reading your perspective on things. You have one of the brightest minds on this site and you come off sincere, pleasant and courteous.

YOUR COMMENT: prefect response, funny as heck.

MY RESPONSE: The inter-dimensional alien from Nebula thing?

YOUR COMMENT: time for you to come out of your shell

MY RESPONSE: Scorpio, if I was really in a shell, I would come out of it just for you. LOL!

YOUR COMMENT: I did read that case and understood it as well.

MY RESPONSE: I agree that your grasp of the facts of the Heath case was EXTRAORDINARY! You nailed it!

YOUR COMMENT: it was quite simple, and the actual case of double dipping in the till was brought by the guy needing a noose,

MY RESPONSE: I agree that in Heath v. Alabama, two different STATES put the defendant on trial for the same or similar crimes. But, according to the Supreme Court, that IS NOT what the "Double Jeopardy" clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits. According to the Supreme Court, the "Double Jeopardy" clause of the U.S. Constitution ONLY prohibits successive prosecutions by the SAME state for the SAME crime and prohibits successive prosecutions by a state and then by the federal government for the SAME crime, BUT NOT SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS BY TWO DIFFERENT STATES WHEN CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN BOTH STATES. I am not saying that ruling makes any sense. I personally do not like this decision. I agree with you that prosecution by "two sovereigns" alone should be prohibited by the "Double Jeopardy" clause.

YOUR COMMENT: but my point with that was the supremes taking that one on, sovereign on sovereign, and only that
the rest of it was just some dumbass slave looking for a loophole.

MY RESPONSE: The decision in Heath v. Alabama was not decided on the basis that the defendant was prosecuted for the same or similar crimes by "two sovereigns" (as you and I would have decided it). The Supreme Court held that the "Double Jeopardy" clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits ONLY prohibits successive prosecutions by the SAME state for the SAME crime and prohibits successive prosecutions by a state and then by the federal government for the SAME crime, BUT NOT SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS BY TWO DIFFERENT STATES WHEN CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN BOTH STATES. The defendant in the case used the "two sovereigns" argument and he lost. If it makes any difference, the dissenting justices agreed with you and I that the "Double Jeopardy" clause should prohibit two successive prosecutions for the same crime regardless of whether those prosecutions are federal or state.

YOUR COMMENT: this one should never have made it to the supremes at all as far as I am concerned, as to me it was cut and dry aok for both states which was my point re that, they hear this one, a 2 bit case,

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. I am willing to bet you that the state of Alabama prosecuted the defendant for a second time for the sole purpose of getting the case before the conservative leaning Supreme Court at the time (Alabama knew the defendant would appeal his Alabama prosecution to the Supreme Court on "Double Jeopardy" grounds). I am willing to bet you that Alabama did this so as to obtain a favorable ruling from the conservative leaning Supreme Court at the time so that it could do the same thing against other defendants in the future.

YOUR COMMENT: moving on to the election dissertation you put together, don't really disagree with your synopsis, but do disagree with your conclusions

MY RESPONSE: The Pennsylvania election discussion or the Texas v. Georgia election discussion?

YOUR COMMENT: the constitution does in fact address elections,

MY RESPONSE: Where are elections addressed in the Constitution? Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution (as amended by the twelfth amendment) addresses the electoral college (which only applies to the President and Vice President).

But, I am unaware of a section of the Constitution which actually regulates voter registration, voter rolls, voting precincts, mail in ballots, ballot drop boxes, voting machines, matching signatures, finger print identification, observers being present when ballots are hand counted, recounts of the vote and so forth. I do not believe the Texas v. Georgia case related to Article II, Section 1 or to the twelfth amendment of the Constitution. Texas v. Georgia related to subjects outside the electoral college and was a frontal assault of Georgia's sovereignty (but the Republicans had to be to manufacture a "state v. state" case to get it before the Supreme Court before the Congressional confirmation deadline expired. They had no choice).

YOUR COMMENT: and who is to react and provide oversight. we have already stated that 'states' have primary control over elections,
but, and a big but, they do have oversight

MY RESPONSE: Yep. Our elected state representatives are supposed to provide oversight. But, they do not always do what they are supposed to do.

YOUR COMMENT: this is my discussion re the supremes and whether or not they should react and hear it.to me, you are totally wrong in assuming they ruled correctly in this. it is spelled out very clearly.

MY RESPONSE: Where is it spelled out clearly that the Supreme Court was REQUIRED to hear the case of Texas v. Georgia?

YOUR COMMENT: but as stated before, your visions of a legal and lawful amerika are far different from mine,

MY RESPONSE: You have me all wrong. I do not always like the law. I do not always agree with the law. But, whether I like it or agree with it, I will ACCURATELY and HONESTLY tell you what the true state of the law is.

AS ALWAYS, EXCELLENT THOUGHTS, MY FRIEND,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Jodster

Always wrong
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,115
Likes
1,024
#55
Snoop, I hope I speak for a great many “Lurkers” when I say thank you for your posts.
They are concise, thoughtful and your great investment of time is appreciated.
It’s the likes of yourself, Mr. Barnacle and a handful of others, whose pensive (and sometimes meandering) commentaries make this a special little gem on the internet.
Quite a place ya got here, Scorp!
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#56
Thanks snoop,

I have nowhere near the qualifications you do regarding law, and won't pretend to. But my opinions that get put here are ruminations of how I see things, my perceptions. And yes, I will drift tangentially, maybe even frequently.

here is one of those :0)
------------
I had mentioned, the supremes should have taken this,
It has already been ruled by those on high that sovereign on sovereign is a battle to be resolved by next higher,
for 2 states, that is the supremes and that is the next higher, along with the supremes have already set precedent by taking such a case
as we went thru earlier, on a much lower level argument

we are not speaking of only pres and vp, but federal
then too, by case law, supremes have ruled that states have initial jurisdiction,
and in our case, one state disagreed with another doing whatever they want with election procedures,

what then is the resolution, if not the supremes? This impacts all states of the union, and the inferred procedure without the supremes is for a local state legislature to 'fix the problem' they created. That doesn't help any of the other states.

Which is why I am being such a dog on this, for without a 'legal fix' or representation, we are at the whim of a Ga, a Pa, or whomever. That certainly was not the intent, as clearly the Founders were worried of exactly that.


III. The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution
The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution states:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Likewise the counterpart to the Elections Clause for the Executive Branch provides: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Id. art. II, § 1, cl. 3.
On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has expounded the meaning of these clauses. Under the Elections Clause, “the states are given[] and in fact exercise wide discretion in the formulation of a system for the choice by the people of representatives in Congress.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 311, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941). The power of the States to prescribe the 539*539 “times, places and manner” for electing federal representatives encompasses nearly every procedural facet of a federal election.
“It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved…. All this is comprised in the subject of ‘times, places and manner of holding elections[.]'”
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932). Of course, Congress can override state election regulations pursuant to its power to “make or alter such regulations.” Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 44 (2001). This “make or alter” power sweeps broadly. Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 387, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Congress, by its power to make or alter the regulations, has a general supervisory power over the whole subject[.]”). “The phrase `such regulations’ plainly refers to regulations of the same general character that the legislature of the State is authorized to prescribe with respect to congressional elections. In exercising this power, the Congress may supplement these state regulations or may substitute its own.” Smiley, 285 U.S. at 366-67, 52 S.Ct. 397. In short, the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69, 118 S.Ct. 464, 139 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997) (citations omitted).
By creating a congressional check on the power of the States to regulate federal elections, the Framers sought to curb the potential for abuses by the States and to give the nascent national government the power to preserve itself. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 808-09, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (collecting quotes from James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Alexander Hamilton expressing concern that by regulating federal elections the States could manipulate their outcome or cripple the functioning of the national government). See also id. at 863, 894, 115 S.Ct. 1842 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (providing additional evidence from other contemporaneous writings that the “make or alter” power afforded Congress the means to support the national government and prevent dissolution of the Union). Without a congressional override the Framers feared that the existence of the federal government would depend upon the willingness of the States to hold federal elections. Id.See also The Federalist No. 59 (Alexander Hamilton). Additionally, for the Framers federal uniformity assured that States did not conspire to time elections so as to deprive Congress of a quorum. 9 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 920 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds., 1990) (arguing that if the States chose the times for holding congressional elections “there might have been as many times of choosing as there are States,” and “such intervals might elapse between the first and last election, as to prevent there being a sufficient number to form a House”) (remarks of George Nicholas at the Virginia ratifying convention). Accordingly, the Elections Clause gives Congress “the capacity to prescribe both the date and the mechanics of congressional 540*540 elections.” Thornton, 514 U.S. at 894, 115 S.Ct. 1842 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Other Framers justified the Clause on the ground that federal elections should be “held on the same day throughout the United States, to prevent corruption or undue influence.” 2 Elliot’s Debates 535 (J. Elliot ed., 1937) (remarks of Thomas McKean at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention).[1]​
https://encyclopedia.lexroll.com/encyclopedia/elections-clause/
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#57
regarding sovereignty,

we have went over this and agreed that this relates to the whole,
I don't take issue with the general direction of that discussion, where there is the singular representing all, then the dual at the state level.

My discussion was in regards to those left out of that whole discussion. When I was speaking of the local level, or the peep on some land.

By stamping dual sovereignty, it actually represents a discussion we have had many times over the years. That even though on paper you own some piece of property, you really don't own it. You are allowed to use that land, claim title to it, take loans against it, other liabilities put against it, and all the other, but in the end, it is the crown that really owns it. This would represent their declarations that the land owner is not a sovereign, is not capable of holding true title to that land, and that he/she is subject to the sovereign existence.

This is a very hard realization for most to come to, even though we have stated it time and again over the years.


and I totally agree with Jodster,
snoop clearly puts a lot of effort into his posts,
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#58
regarding that commentary earlier of a 'sovereign ladder' structure,

I was referencing many out there who meet all of the qualifications of the definition of sovereign. We were speaking of local .govs, city .govs, or even a peep on his land. All can be made to fit the 'definition' of sovereign.

Yet there is a key component missing, and that is recognition of such. The local govs or that peep are not 'recognized' as sovereigns, and therein lies the rub as so many go up against the system and fail.

If a person looks at it, they can also see that the Founders did represent protecting the union, protecting mother ship at virtually all costs. Inclusive of that is the sovereign mans self professed rights. At that time and to this day, there has been a lack of recognition for a 'sovereign man' for obvious reasons.

To do so, would undermine the foundation of mother ship.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#59
regarding sovereignty,

we have went over this and agreed that this relates to the whole,
I don't take issue with the general direction of that discussion, where there is the singular representing all, then the dual at the state level.

My discussion was in regards to those left out of that whole discussion. When I was speaking of the local level, or the peep on some land.

By stamping dual sovereignty, it actually represents a discussion we have had many times over the years. That even though on paper you own some piece of property, you really don't own it. You are allowed to use that land, claim title to it, take loans against it, other liabilities put against it, and all the other, but in the end, it is the crown that really owns it. This would represent their declarations that the land owner is not a sovereign, is not capable of holding true title to that land, and that he/she is subject to the sovereign existence.

This is a very hard realization for most to come to, even though we have stated it time and again over the years.


and I totally agree with Jodster,
snoop clearly puts a lot of effort into his posts,
Hello Again Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: regarding sovereignty, we have went over this and agreed that this relates to the whole, I don't take issue with the general direction of that discussion, where there is the singular representing all, then the dual at the state level.

MY RESPONSE: I apologize. I do not understand this comment, "where there is the singular representing all, then the dual at the state level." What does this comment mean?

YOUR COMMENT: My discussion was in regards to those left out of that whole discussion.

MY RESPONSE: No one is left out of that discussion. Who do you believe was left out of that discussion?

YOUR COMMENT: When I was speaking of the local level, or the peep on some land.

MY RESPONSE: I am sorry, I don't get it. What does this comment mean?

YOUR COMMENT: By stamping dual sovereignty,

MY RESPONSE: In the law, the term, "dual sovereignty", refers ONLY to STATE and FEDERAL sovereignty. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with the individual, a city, or a county.

YOUR COMMENT: it actually represents a discussion we have had many times over the years.

MY RESPONSE: I do not recall ever reading a discussion here on the subject of DUAL STATE AND FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY.

MY RESPONSE: That even though on paper you own some piece of property, you really don't own it.

MY RESPONSE: Yes you do. If you did not own it, then you could not sell (AND KEEP ALL THE PROFITS) it or mortgage it (AND RECEIVES LOANS ON IT).

YOUR COMMENT: You are allowed to use that land, claim title to it, take loans against it, other liabilities put against it, and all the other,

MY RESPONSE: This is correct.

YOUR COMMENT: but in the end, it is the crown that really owns it.

MY RESPONSE: Not unless you sell it or forfeit it to the local, state or federal government (for non-payment of property taxes of for committing crimes using the property).

YOUR COMMENT: This would represent their declarations that the land owner is not a sovereign,

YOUR COMMENT: Correct, Unless the landowner is THE STATE OR THE UNITED STATES, the land owner is not a sovereign. Are we still confused about what a sovereign is?

YOUR COMMENT: is not capable of holding true title to that land,

MY RESPONSE: An ordinary person is capable of holding true title to land. A person does not need to be a sovereign to hold true title to land. Most land is not owned by the sovereign (the STATE or FEDERAL government).

YOUR COMMENT: and that he/she is subject to the sovereign existence.

MY RESPONSE: Privately owned land is subject to taxes and imminent domain by the sovereign or its subsidiaries.

YOUR COMMENT: This is a very hard realization for most to come to, even though we have stated it time and again over the years.

MY RESPONSE: It should not be. A private landowner BENEFITS GREATLY from services rendered to him by the government and he should reimburse the government (over time) for his fair share of the costs of those governmental services. Think about it.

The government pays for all of the roads highways, exits, bridges, overpasses, underpasses, tunnels, guardrails and traffic control devices leading to and from your land. The government pays for all of the drainage of your land (ditches, canals and retention ponds or lakes). The government pays for fire protection of your land (and for you and your family). The government pays for police protection of your land (and for you and your family). The government pays for all the public schools for your children and their friends. The government pays for public parks, playgrounds and libraries. The government or a governmental utility often provides you with an unlimited supply of fresh, clean drinking water and often pays for the plants which process it. The government or a governmental utility often treats your sewage and often pays for the sewage treatment plants which treat it. The government or a governmental utility often provides you with an unlimited supply of electrical power. The government often pays for building the airports and the shipping ports which serve your community. And, to top it all off, the government pays for our military defense!

Why is all of this important? Because it makes your land MUCH MORE VALUABLE both to you and to those you would sell your land to.

YOU PROFIT FROM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES!!!!!!!!!

Can you really say (with a straight face) that a landowner who receives all of these governmental services (WHICH MAKE HIS LAND INFINITELY MORE VALUABLE TO HIM AND TO THOSE HE WOULD SELL IT TO) should freeload on society and force everyone else to pay his share of these costs? Are you effing kidding me! That is socialism!

YOUR COMMENT: and I totally agree with Jodster,snoop clearly puts a lot of effort into his posts

MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your kind words. I am only trying to help.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#60
Hello Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: regarding that commentary earlier of a 'sovereign ladder' structure,I was referencing many out there who meet all of the qualifications of the definition of sovereign.

MY RESPONSE: Are we STILL confused about what a sovereign is? Have you even read my highlighted version of your own definitions of sovereign above? If not, then please do it. Under EVERY single published definition of sovereign both here and elsewhere (including all of your own), only a STATE or NATION is a sovereign. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE.

1. Is a landowner an "INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
2. Is a landowner an "authority IN GOVERNMENT..." "as possessed BY A STATE"? (your definition)
3. Does a landowner have legal authority over "an INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
4. Does a landowner have the "INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE" (your definition)
5. Does a landowner have the "POWER OF A STATE" to "MAKE LAW", to "EXECUTE LAW",to "APPLY LAW". "COLLECT TAXES" "MAKE WAR" and to "FORM TREATIES"? (your definition)
6. Is a landowner's power "POSSESSED IN A STATE"? (your definition)
7. Does a landowner have the "POWER TO DO EVERYTHING IN A STATE WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY"? (your definition)
8. Does a landowner's power "RESIDE IN THE BODY OF A NATION"? (your definition)
9. Is a landowner's power "DIVIDED INTO... THE LEGISLATIVE. THE EXECUTIVE and the JUDICIARY"? (your definition)
10. Does a landowner have the legal power to "JUDGE" disputes arising among his neighbors and the legal power to "PUNISH" his neighbors for crimes? (your definition)


Neither a landowner nor a city or county fit all of these requirements for sovereignty.

YOUR COMMENT: We were speaking of local .govs, city .govs, or even a peep on his land. All can be made to fit the 'definition' of sovereign.

MY RESPONSE: No they cannot.

1. Is a landowner an "INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
2. Is a landowner an "authority IN GOVERNMENT..." "as possessed BY A STATE"? (your definition)
3. Does a landowner have legal authority over "an INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
4. Does a landowner have the "INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE" (your definition)
5. Does a landowner have the "POWER OF A STATE" to "MAKE LAW", to "EXECUTE LAW",to "APPLY LAW". "COLLECT TAXES" "MAKE WAR" and to "FORM TREATIES"? (your definition)
6. Is a landowner's power "POSSESSED IN A STATE"? (your definition)
7. Does a landowner have the "POWER TO DO EVERYTHING IN A STATE WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY"? (your definition)
8. Does a landowner's power "RESIDE IN THE BODY OF A NATION"? (your definition)
9. Is a landowner's power "DIVIDED INTO... THE LEGISLATIVE. THE EXECUTIVE and the JUDICIARY"? (your definition)
10. Does a landowner have the legal power to "JUDGE" disputes arising among his neighbors"and the legal power to PUNISH" his neighbors for crimes? (your definition)


Neither a landowner nor a city or county fit all of these requirements for sovereignty.

YOUR COMMENT: Yet there is a key component missing, and that is recognition of such. The local govs or that peep are not 'recognized' as sovereigns, and therein lies the rub as so many go up against the system and fail.

MY RESPONSE: Local governments and people are not recognized as sovereigns, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SOVEREIGNS (A STATE OR NATION).

YOUR COMMENT: If a person looks at it, they can also see that the Founders did represent protecting the union, protecting mother ship at virtually all costs.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Of the ten amendments which make up the Bill Of Rights in the United States Constitution, ALL TEN AMENDMENTS CONTAIN PROTECTIONS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT FOR THE MOTHER SHIP. AND THIS DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE REMAINING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AFTER THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

YOUR COMMENT: Inclusive of that is the sovereign mans self professed rights.

MY RESPONSE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SOVEREIGN MAN". ONLY THE STATE AND NATION ARE SOVEREIGN. In our republic, "self-professed rights" ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. The only individual rights that a person may enforce are those appearing in the STATE and FEDERAL law. Self-professing something will not do the trick.

YOUR COMMENT: At that time and to this day, there has been a lack of recognition for a 'sovereign man' for obvious reasons.

MY RESPONSE: AGREED! THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF RECOGNITION FOR A "SOVEREIGN MAN" IS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SOVEREIGN MAN" TO RECOGNIZE. Why is this so difficult for you to follow?

YOUR COMMENT: To do so, would undermine the foundation of mother ship.

MY RESPONSE: AGREED. EVERY PERSON ON EARTH CANNOT BE A "STATE"A OR "NATION". THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING INDEED. LOL!

With Respect,

Snoop[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#61
should freeload on society and force everyone else to pay his share of these costs?
you are inferring something that did not exist and was never stated nor believed,

but to your long list of .gov 'services', it is you who kids me

The government pays for all of the roads highways, exits, bridges, overpasses, underpasses, tunnels, guardrails and traffic control devices leading to and from your land. The government pays for all of the drainage of your land (ditches, canals and retention ponds or lakes). The government pays for fire protection of your land (and for you and your family). The government pays for police protection of your land (and for you and your family). The government pays for all the public schools for your children. The government pays for public parks, playgrounds and libraries. The government or a governmental utility often provides you with an unlimited supply of fresh, clean drinking water and often pays for the plants which process it. The government or a governmental utility often treats your sewage and often pays for the sewage treatment plants which treat it. The government or a governmental utility often provides you with an unlimited supply of electrical power. The government often pays for building the airports and the shipping ports which serve your community. And, to top it all off, the government pays for our military defense!
and I could rebut this quite easily by listing all of the taxes paid to support this myriad of so called 'services' to which I am benefiting, This is even without discussing the invalidity of those services you claim are so beneficial. I not only pay time and again for these supposed services, but I pay also for those slaves who don't pay their own way. There is no need to speculate on how much or little I pay for this existence.

for instance, public education, on your list................we could not be less served by the powers that be regarding education. We are doing a incredibly inept job of educating our young.

you see, I can show you that those supposed valuations you claim, are nothing more than a direct reflection of monetary inflation over time.

the charts exist here on this site showing housing prices over the long term vs fiat creation,
if you are unfamiliar with the monetary discussions, it is worth the trip and actually quite fascinating,
as it opens the door to all manner of cool subjects, such as standard of living declines, why does a avg house cost $300k now, and so on it goes

for me, a heckuva lot more interesting than lawful and legal discussions

but for me to go there, would absolutely take this into permanent thread drift, and after 20 years, pretty much have stated all there is to state on these subjects. At this point I would just be a boring repetitious attention whore.
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#62
MY RESPONSE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SOVEREIGN MAN". ONLY THE STATE AND NATION ARE SOVEREIGN. In our republic, "self-professed rights" ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. The only individual rights that a person may enforce are those appearing in the STATE and FEDERAL law. Self-professing something will not do the trick.

YOUR COMMENT: At that time and to this day, there has been a lack of recognition for a 'sovereign man' for obvious reasons.

MY RESPONSE: AGREED! THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF RECOGNITION FOR A "SOVEREIGN MAN" IS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SOVEREIGN MAN" TO RECOGNIZE. Why is this so difficult for you to follow?
just clipped a small portion of your responses, and invariably and repeatedly you assign me values without understanding the context in which it is written

for instance, sovereign man is a discussion that has been had many times here over the years, with some believing that there is such a thing. I not only speak to you, but represent their views at times. Yes, it clouds the water, but it is what it is.

guys have spent an awful lot of intellectual capital either promoting or dispelling this idea/concept of a sovereign man

as stated long ago, I am fully familiar with the misrepresentations of sovereignty

and yes, I will be infuriating at times, because I have other motivations going on as I review something
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#63
just clipped a small portion of your responses, and invariably and repeatedly you assign me values without understanding the context in which it is written

for instance, sovereign man is a discussion that has been had many times here over the years, with some believing that there is such a thing. I not only speak to you, but represent their views at times. Yes, it clouds the water, but it is what it is.

guys have spent an awful lot of intellectual capital either promoting or dispelling this idea/concept of a sovereign man

as stated long ago, I am fully familiar with the misrepresentations of sovereignty

and yes, I will be infuriating at times, because I have other motivations going on as I review something
Hello Scorpio,

YOUR COMMENT: just clipped a small portion of your responses, and invariably and repeatedly you assign me values without understanding the context in which it is written

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, the context will not change the law or the definition of a sovereign. The law and the definition of a sovereign will remain the same, regardless of context.

YOUR COMMENT: for instance, sovereign man is a discussion that has been had many times here over the years, with some believing that there is such a thing. I not only speak to you, but represent their views at times. Yes, it clouds the water, but it is what it is.

MY RESPONSE: Regardless of what is discussed here or elsewhere, the truth is that there is no such thing as a "sovereign man" (except for a King in a nation ruled by a King).

YOUR COMMENT: Guys have spent an awful lot of intellectual capital either promoting or dispelling this idea/concept of a sovereign man.

MY RESPONSE" That is fine, But, that will not change the law or the definition of a sovereign. The law and the definition of a sovereign will remain the same regardless of the amount of intellectual capital spent arguing to the contrary.

YOUR COMMENT: as stated long ago, I am fully familiar with the misrepresentations of sovereignty

MY RESPONSE: All evidence to the contrary. Your recent posts suggest that you are not only familiar with these misrepresentations, but that you have also adopted them as your own beliefs. I certainly hope that is not the case. I have had great expectations for you as a partner in teaching the law as it actually is.

YOUR COMMENT: and yes, I will be infuriating at times,

MY RESPONSE: I am not infuriated. I am confused. I wonder whether I am making good use of my time.

YOUR COMMENT: because I have other motivations going on as I review something

MY RESPONSE: Perhaps you might let me in on your other motivations. It might save me a lot of time. Much of my work here may not even be necessary.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#64
I have presented to you ways in which fellas will argue their points as they make their claim,
and it is chuck full of twists and turns, yet it never substantiates their claim of sovereignty,

This would represent their declarations that the land owner is not a sovereign,
At that time and to this day, there has been a lack of recognition for a 'sovereign man' for obvious reasons.
pretty clear,


regardless, when I have seen their arguments, they virtually answer yes to each of your questions,
and in order to understand their position, one needs to understand how they arrive at it
they will take a term like 'secure in their persons and their property', and use that to lay claim that they are a state, that they make their own laws/rules in their home, they do have the right to enforce their property lines, and they do adjudicate disagreements,

They fall into the trap of conflating individual rights taken from the constitution and applying it to the reserved claims of the corporate state.

Yet, you too have fallen into the same trap of your own making. When you declared land ownership as a fact. I won't go into it in this thread, but you have definitively come down on the side of 'you own your land', when in fact, that is the illusion.

Each warrior does battle in a different way, picking and choosing as they go.




MY RESPONSE: No they cannot.

1. Is a landowner an "INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
2. Is a landowner an "authority IN GOVERNMENT..." "as possessed BY A STATE"? (your definition)
3. Does a landowner have legal authority over "an INDEPENDENT STATE"? (your definition)
4. Does a landowner have the "INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A STATE" (your definition)
5. Does a landowner have the "POWER OF A STATE" to "MAKE LAW", to "EXECUTE LAW",to "APPLY LAW". "COLLECT TAXES" "MAKE WAR" and to "FORM TREATIES"? (your definition)
6. Is a landowner's power "POSSESSED IN A STATE"? (your definition)
7. Does a landowner have the "POWER TO DO EVERYTHING IN A STATE WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY"? (your definition)
8. Does a landowner's power "RESIDE IN THE BODY OF A NATION"? (your definition)
9. Is a landowner's power "DIVIDED INTO... THE LEGISLATIVE. THE EXECUTIVE and the JUDICIARY"? (your definition)
10. Does a landowner have the legal power to "JUDGE" disputes arising among his neighbors"PUNISH" his neighbors for crimes? (your definition)


regardless, here is a rip from wiki, and we all know how 'accurate' they are:


The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American litigants, commentators, tax protesters, and financial-scheme promoters. Self-described "sovereign citizens" see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.[1] In the United States, they do not recognize U.S. currency and maintain that they are "free of any legal constraints".[2][3][4] They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate.[5] Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to the idea of "federal citizens", who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.[6] The doctrines of the movement resemble those of the freemen on the land movement more commonly found in the Commonwealth, such as Australia and Canada.[7][8][9][10]

Many members of the sovereign citizen movement believe that the United States government is illegitimate.[11] JJ MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, has described the sovereign-citizen movement as consisting of individuals who believe that the county sheriff is the most powerful law-enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, elected official, or local law-enforcement official.[12] The movement can be traced back to white-extremist groups like Posse Comitatus and the constitutional militia movement.[13] It also includes members of certain self-declared "Moorish" sects.[14]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies some sovereign citizens ("sovereign citizen extremists") as domestic terrorists.[15] In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimated that approximately 100,000 Americans were "hard-core sovereign believers", with another 200,000 "just starting out by testing sovereign techniques for resisting everything from speeding tickets to drug charges".[16]

In surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, representatives of U.S. law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign-citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racists, and neo-Nazis.[17][18] The New South Wales Police Force in Australia has also identified sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat.[19]

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

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#65
'I am a Sovereign. I am 'We the People'': Rant by maskless S’porean woman in Shunfu, explained
MS Explains: What does she mean by 'I am a sovereign' and is she really above the law?
Andrew Koay |
May 04, 2020, 01:19 PM




Law Awareness Week 2020
05 October 2020 - 13 November 2020

Two videos emerged over the first weekend of May 2020 showing a woman refusing to wear a face mask while at Shunfu Mart.


In one of the videos, the woman, who is being confronted by numerous people around her, made a rather confusing statement.
"I'm a sovereign! I am a sovereign," she said, while explaining why she did not have to wear a mask.

Background


The lady in question had actually appeared in two other viral videos that circulated in April.
Those videos were taken at the same market, and featured the woman confronted by police for not wearing a mask.
Instead of expressing remorse, she whipped out her phone then and pointed its camera defiantly at the police.
In the latest video, the woman made a reference to the incident, saying:

"I'll show you a video of the police, here! Same thing, trying to stop me. They walked off, without a warning, without a fine."​


She then explained the law did not apply to her:

It means I have nothing to do with the police. It means I have no contract with the police and they have no say over me."​


"That's the thing," replied the woman.



The declaration in the viral video sent Singaporeans into a Google search frenzy, with the word "sovereign" being the most searched word in the country on Sunday.









What is a sovereign citizen?



The concept of a sovereign citizen has its roots in the United States where it has turned into something of a movement.

According to Forbes, an individual who claims to be a sovereign citizen is someone who believes that they are above all laws.

In the U.S. those who subscribe to the movement believe that they are not held accountable by U.S. laws, even though they live within its borders.

Instead, in this world view, they are sovereign — possessing ultimate power — over themselves.

The New York Times reported that the movement has its origins in a conspiracy theory regarding the U.S. government, which spun an alternative take on American history.

According to the sovereign citizens, the U.S. government was at some point covertly usurped by a corporation.

That corporation eventually went bankrupt and sought help from international financiers.

As collateral, the corporation — which was now posing as the government — put up its citizens, or so goes the tale.

This rendered state documents, such as a birth certificate or identification cards (in the U.S. this is known as a social security card) contracts of enslavement.

The only way to freedom? Renounce these documents and assert your sovereignty.







What do sovereign citizens do?



The way that belief in the movements generally play out is various forms of civil disobedience and crimes.

A 2011 FBI report found that sovereign citizens were found to be engaged in financial crimes and frauds, with many in the movement seeking to evade taxes or dispose of debt.

In extreme cases, sovereign citizens may even become violent.

The FBI report cited the killings of two police officers in 2010.

The officers had stopped two sovereign citizen extremists — a man and and his 16-year-old son — during a routine traffic check.

The son then jumped out of the vehicle and shot the officers with an assault rifle, murdering them.



The woman who refuses to wear a mask



So, how does all this apply to the woman seen in the video?

Well, we can only guess from the short declarations that she made, but it seemed as if she is at least minimally aware about the concept of a sovereign or the sovereign citizens movement.

By claiming she is a sovereign, the woman may be announcing her belief that she is not held accountable by the laws in this country.

That could be why she refused to wear a face mask even though, at the moment, Singapore's law requires individuals to wear one when they're outside the home.

It explains the lady's devil-may-care attitude to the police as well, who are the traditional enforcers of the law.

As — in her mind — she is not accountable to the law, the police, therefore, do not have any power over her.

Her insistence that she is "not a person" but instead "We the People" is likely another nod to the movement in the U.S.

The phrase is a reference to the first words in the first lines of the Constitution of the U.S., a symbol of the move away from rule by a monarch (which was still a common form of government at the time the U.S. constitution was drafted), towards rule by the people via democracy.







Aftermath



Contrary to the woman's claims that she has "nothing to do with the police", Chong Kee Hiong, a Member of the Parliament from Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC revealed in a Facebook post that she had been "swiftly apprehended".

Chong also refuted the woman's assertion that she had not been warned or fined for the previous incident at the same market in Shunfu.

She had instead been "caught and fined".

In response to queries from Mothership, the Singapore Police Force said that they are investigating the woman for voluntarily causing hurt, causing public nuisance, and breaching safe distancing measures.

You can read their statement in full here:



"On 3 May 2020 at 12.16pm, the Police received a call for assistance at 320 Shunfu Road. Preliminary investigations indicated that a 40-year-old Singaporean woman, who had previously breached safe distancing measures, was not wearing a mask and allegedly assaulted a 47-year-old woman who advised her to put on a mask. The Police are investigating the woman for voluntarily causing hurt, causing public nuisance and breaching safe distancing measures under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020.
The Police take a serious view of such abusive and irresponsible behaviour, especially in the current COVID-19 situation. We urge the public to take the circuit breaker measures seriously and comply with the safe distancing measures."​

https://mothership.sg/2020/05/sovereign/
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#66
Merry Christmas to all my brothers here.

If anyone is thinking about giving me a Christmas present this year, I would like a means to donate to goldismoney2.com anonymously

Is there a gofundme account available through which I might send GIM2 some FRN's?

I have an anonymous account there.

I owe for several years now and I'd rather not be a freeloader of the type I criticize here.

Merry Christmas.

Snoop
 

Scorpio

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,208
Likes
48,986
#67
Snoop, thank you for the gesture,

but we don't take more than we need to keep the lights on,

there will probably be a funding drive in Feb or so for the next year,

and I wish you a very Merry Christmas also, to you and your family

we all should be mindful of the 2 things that matter most, family and health
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#69
Snoop, thank you for the gesture,

but we don't take more than we need to keep the lights on,

there will probably be a funding drive in Feb or so for the next year,

and I wish you a very Merry Christmas also, to you and your family

we all should be mindful of the 2 things that matter most, family and health
Merry Christmas Scorpio,

And Merry Christmas to all my other brothers on this site with a passion for the law.

Happiness and health to you all.

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#71
Snoop, I hope I speak for a great many “Lurkers” when I say thank you for your posts.
They are concise, thoughtful and your great investment of time is appreciated.
It’s the likes of yourself, Mr. Barnacle and a handful of others, whose pensive (and sometimes meandering) commentaries make this a special little gem on the internet.
Quite a place ya got here, Scorp!
Hello Jodster,

Thank you for your kind words.

It is people like you who make all my effort worth while.

Merry Christmas, my brother.

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#73
Hello Bigjon,

This video above relies on Long v. Rasmussen below.

In this century old case, Mr. Wise owed money to the Internal Revenue Service. SO, WISE WAS THE TAXPAYER IN THE CASE. Mrs. Long did not owe money to the Internal Revenue Service. SO, MRS,. LONG WAS THE NONTAXPAYER IN THE CASE.

Long (who did not owe money to the IRS) owned a hotel. Wise (who did owe money to the IRS) stayed at Long's hotel. Wise once used Long's hotel as his address. Wise wanted to buy Long's hotel and put a down payment on it and was paying Long regular installment payments on it. Wise even once paid the LOCAL property taxes on Long's hotel (apparently to avoid losing the property if Long failed to pay her LOCAL property taxes on it OR because paying the LOCAL property taxes on Long's hotel was part of his agreement with Long to buy the hotel).

Rasmussen worked for the IRS. Rasmussen's only job was to collect taxes. Rasmussen had no legal authority to seize property from taxpayers much less nontaxpayers. Rasmussen sought to collect taxes from Wise, THE TAXPAYER IN THE CASE. Rasmussen mistakenly thought that Long's hotel belonged to Wise because Wise used it as his address and because he had once paid the LOCAL property taxes on it.

Apparently frustrated in his efforts to collect taxes from Wise (THE TAXPAYER) any other way, Rasmussen illegally seized Long's hotel with no legal authority to do so. Long, THE NONTAXPAYER sued Rasmussen. Wise, THE TAXPAYER was not a party to the case.

The court ordered Rasmussen to reverse the seizure of Long's hotel and held that IRS laws relating to paying taxes apply to TAXPAYERS (LIKE WISE) ONLY AND NOT TO NONTAXPAYERS (LIKE LONG). NO SURPRISE THERE.

IMPORTANTLY, THE COURT SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE CASE AND ITS RULINGS OF LAW HAD NO APPLICATION TO SITUATIONS WHERE TAXPAYER CLAIMS TO BE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX LAWS OR WHERE THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THE TAX IS ILLEGAL! THIS STATEMENT IS DIRECTLY REBUTS THE NARRATOR'S CLAIMS THAT THIS CASE IS APPLICABLE TO SITUATIONS WHERE TAXPAYER CLAIMS TO BE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX LAWS OR WHERE THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THE TAX IS ILLEGAL!

NOTE: THAT THE NARRATOR OF THE VIDEO SAW FIT TO CONCEAL THAT STATEMENT OF THE COURT FROM HIS VIEWERS BECAUSE THAT STATEMENT OF THE COURT DID NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE WAS PEDDLING.

CONCLUSION:
Thus, this case provides no support for the false proposition in the video to the effect that human beings receiving income inside the borders of the United States may avoid paying income taxes on that income merely by claiming to be an "AMERICAN NATIONAL" or by claiming to be something else. NAME GAMES DO NOT WORK TO AVOID INCOME TAXES!



LONG V. RASMUSSEN.
No. 97
May 29, 1922.
In Equity. Suit by Edna Long against C. A. Rasmussen, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Montana, and another. Decree rendered for plaintiff.

George F. Shelton, J. Bruce Kremer, L. P. Sanders, and Alf C. Kremer, all of Butte, Mont., for plaintiff.
John L. Slattery, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Helena, Mont., for defendants.

COURT SUMMARY:
In Long v. Rasmussen (D.C.) 281 F. 236, the injunction sought was not against the collection of the tax, but only to protect special property of a third person which had been wrongfully seized.


BOURQUIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff alleges she owns and is entitled to possession of certain property distrained by defendant collector of internal revenue, to make certain "distilled spirits taxes and penalties" assessed against one Wise, and she seeks to enjoin threatened sale and to recover possession.

The evidence in her behalf is that the property is the furnishings of a resort or hotel conducted by her, excepting an automatic organ is owned by her, and was in her possession when distrained by defendant. This is proof of plaintiff's ownership and right of possession, and imposes upon defendant the burden to justify the seizure by a preponderance of the evidence that Wise owns the property.

To that end he presents ambiguous circumstances only, viz. that Wise or his wife has some interest in the hotel building; that during plaintiff's tenancy of the building Wise once gave his address as at that hotel, had installed the automatic organ, and made payments upon it, and in 1917-1921 presented to the assessor of local taxes lists of property for taxation to Wise, including the hotel building and furnishings, which taxes were paid by him. These lists were admitted, subject to the anomalous objection that they be "taken only for what they are worth."

Being res inter alios acta, the better rule is that generally they [local property tax records] are not competent evidence in actions involving title and ownership of property, and to which the list maker is not a party. In any event, the burden has not been sustained by defendant, and the finding is that at time of seizure and now plaintiff was and is owner and entitled to possession of the property. To dispose briefly of various suggestions, rather than contentions, the seizure threatening disruption of plaintiff's going business, infliction of uncertain damages, and irreparable injury, equity has jurisdiction, even as in like circumstances of wrongful attachment or execution, for that law affords no adequate remedy. See Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 79, 18 L.Ed. 580.

The suit is not against the United States, but is against an individual who, as an officer of the United States in discharge of a discretionless ministerial duty, upon plaintiff's property is committing without authority, contrary to his duty, and in violation of the due process of the Constitution and the revenue laws of the United States, positive acts of trespass for which he is personally liable. See Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 620, 32 Sup.Ct. 340, 56 L.Ed. 570; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 18, 16 Sup.Ct. 443, 40 L.Ed. 599; U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 219, 1 Sup.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171; Magruder v. Association, 219 F. 78, 135 C.C.A. 524. Congress has no power to grant, and has not assumed to grant, authority to the defendant collector to distrain the property of one person to make the taxes of another. Perhaps it could, were the property in possession of the taxpayer, which is not this case. See Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 253.

Section 3224, R.S. (Comp. St. § 5947), that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court," applies to taxpayers only, and who, thus deprived of one remedy, are given another by section 3226, R.S. (Comp. St. § 5949), viz. an action to recover after taxes paid and repayment denied by the Commissioner. Nor are they limited to this statutory remedy, but, after taxes paid, they may have trespass or other action against the collector. See Erskine v. Hohnbach, 14 Wall. 616, 20 L.Ed. 745: De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 179, 21 Sup.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041; Pacific Co. v. U.S. 187 U.S. 453, 23 Sup.Ct. 154, 47 L.Ed. 253.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. The instant suit is not to restrain assessment or collection of taxes of Wise, but is to enjoin trespass upon property of plaintiff, and against whom no assessment has been made, and of whom no collection is sought. Note, too, the taxes are not assessed against the property. This presents a widely different case than that wherein the person assessed, or whose property is assessed, seeks to restrain assessment or collection ON THE THEORY HE OR IT IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION, OR THAT FOR ANY REASON THE TAX IS ILLEGAL.

The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without them is vital. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, 21 Sup.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041. To the former only does section 3224 apply (see cases cited in Violette v. Walsh [D.C.] 272 F. 1016), and the well-understood exigencies of government and its revenues and their collection do not serve to extend it to the latter. It is a shield for official action, not a sword for private aggression. There is dictum to the contrary in Sheridan v. Allen, 153 F. 569, 82 C.C.A. 522, but it is neither supported by the case it cites nor by any other brought to attention.

Markle v. Kirkendall (D.C.) 267 F. 500, tends to the conclusion herein. It is not improbable that section 934, R.S. (Comp. St. § 1560), wherein it provides that property taken by an officer "under authority of any revenue law" is "irrepleviable," is in "custody of law," and "subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof," contemplates the instant case. The collector assumed in good faith to distrain property he believes to be the taxpayer's. If he peaceably secures possession of it (for, if not the taxpayer's, the owner may lawfully forcibly prevent), he is not bound to deliver it to any chance claimant, nor is he subject to be deprived of it by replevin before trial.

The nontaxpayer owner, however, is free to bring any other proper action, the court to determine title, ownership, and possession, the collector having no power to do so, and the property "subject only to the orders and decrees of the court," to be by the court disposed of as justice requires. See In re Fassett, 142 U.S. 486, 12 Sup.Ct. 295, 35 L.Ed. 1087; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 180, 21 Sup.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041. And this is the course in respect to any property in custodia legis, aside from statute.

This trial demonstrating that plaintiff owns and is entitled to possession of the property, and that the defendant wrongfully seized it to make taxes owed by Wise, justice requires that the sale be enjoined and the possession restored to her.

Decree accordingly, and with costs.

Merry Christmas,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#75
THESE ARE MY NOTES FOR A WORK IN PROGRESS.

The jurisdiction of the United States applies everywhere in the United States.

Letters do not constitute law.

Federal register requirements (requiring publication of statutes in the Federal Register) apply only to Congressional statutes NOT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

The Economy Plumbing case does not contain these quoted words, much less con

jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdictin

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;



31 CFR 515.329.

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.​
...
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.​
...
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.​
In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:
  • Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
  • Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and
  • Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
Any other person born in the proper US or in incorporated US territory is a citizen, no matter who his or her parents are or were. (The case is less clear for unincorporated US territory.)

Thus the question of whether such aliens were "within the jurisdiction" of the US was very much at issue in Plyler v. Doe
EDIT: Since the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed, all Native Americans born within the US have been citizens by birth, and the third class of exceptions noted in the earlier cases non longer exists. Prior to this act Native Americans were in many ways treated as foreigners by the US. They were not citizens by birth, and their tribes had some but not all of the attributes of independent nations.
The text of the law is:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.​
(End edit on Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
Edit: On reading through the decision of the case of Wong Kim Ark I find one more small exclusion: persons born on board a foreign naval ship, even though present in US waters in time of peace, are not citizens of the US because of their birth location. This is apparently not a usual case, but is premised on the ground that a military vessel remains the territory of the nation it belongs to. Such persons might of course be citizens by inheritance if one or both parents are US citizens, and the statutory conditions are complied with. (The term "public ship" in the 1800s was used to mean a national ship, that is a military ship.) (End edit on naval ships)
I just learned that some parts of the State of Maine were occupied by the British during the war of 1812. I do not know if anyone was born during that occupation whose citizenship might have been affected.
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
#76
Why was a Constitutional amendment necessary to prohibit alcohol, but not other substances?

Is it because lawyers pull shit out of their asses, gussy it up, and give it fancy names...like precedent, standing, jurisdiction, etc?

...and please don't feed me that volstead act rubbish...the timing is all wrong.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
539
Likes
121
#77
Why was a Constitutional amendment necessary to prohibit alcohol, but not other substances?

Is it because lawyers pull shit out of their asses, gussy it up, and give it fancy names...like precedent, standing, jurisdiction, etc?

...and please don't feed me that volstead act rubbish...the timing is all wrong.
http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-road-to-prohibition/the-temperance-movement/#:~:text=The roots of what became Prohibition in 1920,women gathered in protest outside a local saloon.

https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/women-leaders-of-temperance/
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
#78
THESE ARE MY NOTES FOR A WORK IN PROGRESS.

The jurisdiction of the United States applies everywhere in the United States.

Letters do not constitute law.

Federal register requirements (requiring publication of statutes in the Federal Register) apply only to Congressional statutes NOT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

The Economy Plumbing case does not contain these quoted words, much less con

jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdictin

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;



31 CFR 515.329.

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.​
...
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.​
...
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.​
In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:
  • Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
  • Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and
  • Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
Any other person born in the proper US or in incorporated US territory is a citizen, no matter who his or her parents are or were. (The case is less clear for unincorporated US territory.)

Thus the question of whether such aliens were "within the jurisdiction" of the US was very much at issue in Plyler v. Doe
EDIT: Since the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed, all Native Americans born within the US have been citizens by birth, and the third class of exceptions noted in the earlier cases non longer exists. Prior to this act Native Americans were in many ways treated as foreigners by the US. They were not citizens by birth, and their tribes had some but not all of the attributes of independent nations.
The text of the law is:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.​
(End edit on Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
Edit: On reading through the decision of the case of Wong Kim Ark I find one more small exclusion: persons born on board a foreign naval ship, even though present in US waters in time of peace, are not citizens of the US because of their birth location. This is apparently not a usual case, but is premised on the ground that a military vessel remains the territory of the nation it belongs to. Such persons might of course be citizens by inheritance if one or both parents are US citizens, and the statutory conditions are complied with. (The term "public ship" in the 1800s was used to mean a national ship, that is a military ship.) (End edit on naval ships)
I just learned that some parts of the State of Maine were occupied by the British during the war of 1812. I do not know if anyone was born during that occupation whose citizenship might have been affected.
They are referring to Non-resident alien individuals.

This United States is defined where?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330

Title 31 is the treasury, one of the limited jurisdictions of the US govt.
  1. Title 31. Money and Finance: Treasury




United States
The term United States means the United States and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof, including the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The term continental United States means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,498
Likes
4,314
#79
'I am a Sovereign. I am 'We the People'': Rant by maskless S’porean woman in Shunfu, explained
MS Explains: What does she mean by 'I am a sovereign' and is she really above the law?
Andrew Koay |
May 04, 2020, 01:19 PM



Law Awareness Week 2020
05 October 2020 - 13 November 2020

Two videos emerged over the first weekend of May 2020 showing a woman refusing to wear a face mask while at Shunfu Mart.


In one of the videos, the woman, who is being confronted by numerous people around her, made a rather confusing statement.
"I'm a sovereign! I am a sovereign," she said, while explaining why she did not have to wear a mask.

Background


The lady in question had actually appeared in two other viral videos that circulated in April.
Those videos were taken at the same market, and featured the woman confronted by police for not wearing a mask.
Instead of expressing remorse, she whipped out her phone then and pointed its camera defiantly at the police.
In the latest video, the woman made a reference to the incident, saying:

"I'll show you a video of the police, here! Same thing, trying to stop me. They walked off, without a warning, without a fine."​


She then explained the law did not apply to her:

It means I have nothing to do with the police. It means I have no contract with the police and they have no say over me."​


"That's the thing," replied the woman.



The declaration in the viral video sent Singaporeans into a Google search frenzy, with the word "sovereign" being the most searched word in the country on Sunday.









What is a sovereign citizen?



The concept of a sovereign citizen has its roots in the United States where it has turned into something of a movement.

According to Forbes, an individual who claims to be a sovereign citizen is someone who believes that they are above all laws.

In the U.S. those who subscribe to the movement believe that they are not held accountable by U.S. laws, even though they live within its borders.

Instead, in this world view, they are sovereign — possessing ultimate power — over themselves.

The New York Times reported that the movement has its origins in a conspiracy theory regarding the U.S. government, which spun an alternative take on American history.

According to the sovereign citizens, the U.S. government was at some point covertly usurped by a corporation.

That corporation eventually went bankrupt and sought help from international financiers.

As collateral, the corporation — which was now posing as the government — put up its citizens, or so goes the tale.

This rendered state documents, such as a birth certificate or identification cards (in the U.S. this is known as a social security card) contracts of enslavement.

The only way to freedom? Renounce these documents and assert your sovereignty.







What do sovereign citizens do?



The way that belief in the movements generally play out is various forms of civil disobedience and crimes.

A 2011 FBI report found that sovereign citizens were found to be engaged in financial crimes and frauds, with many in the movement seeking to evade taxes or dispose of debt.

In extreme cases, sovereign citizens may even become violent.

The FBI report cited the killings of two police officers in 2010.

The officers had stopped two sovereign citizen extremists — a man and and his 16-year-old son — during a routine traffic check.

The son then jumped out of the vehicle and shot the officers with an assault rifle, murdering them.



The woman who refuses to wear a mask



So, how does all this apply to the woman seen in the video?

Well, we can only guess from the short declarations that she made, but it seemed as if she is at least minimally aware about the concept of a sovereign or the sovereign citizens movement.

By claiming she is a sovereign, the woman may be announcing her belief that she is not held accountable by the laws in this country.

That could be why she refused to wear a face mask even though, at the moment, Singapore's law requires individuals to wear one when they're outside the home.

It explains the lady's devil-may-care attitude to the police as well, who are the traditional enforcers of the law.

As — in her mind — she is not accountable to the law, the police, therefore, do not have any power over her.

Her insistence that she is "not a person" but instead "We the People" is likely another nod to the movement in the U.S.

The phrase is a reference to the first words in the first lines of the Constitution of the U.S., a symbol of the move away from rule by a monarch (which was still a common form of government at the time the U.S. constitution was drafted), towards rule by the people via democracy.







Aftermath



Contrary to the woman's claims that she has "nothing to do with the police", Chong Kee Hiong, a Member of the Parliament from Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC revealed in a Facebook post that she had been "swiftly apprehended".

Chong also refuted the woman's assertion that she had not been warned or fined for the previous incident at the same market in Shunfu.

She had instead been "caught and fined".

In response to queries from Mothership, the Singapore Police Force said that they are investigating the woman for voluntarily causing hurt, causing public nuisance, and breaching safe distancing measures.

You can read their statement in full here:



"On 3 May 2020 at 12.16pm, the Police received a call for assistance at 320 Shunfu Road. Preliminary investigations indicated that a 40-year-old Singaporean woman, who had previously breached safe distancing measures, was not wearing a mask and allegedly assaulted a 47-year-old woman who advised her to put on a mask. The Police are investigating the woman for voluntarily causing hurt, causing public nuisance and breaching safe distancing measures under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020.​
The Police take a serious view of such abusive and irresponsible behaviour, especially in the current COVID-19 situation. We urge the public to take the circuit breaker measures seriously and comply with the safe distancing measures."​

https://mothership.sg/2020/05/sovereign/
More bs from bs'rs.

Sovereign and Citizen are two mutually opposite terms.
Under the form of govt adopted by the Declaration of Independence, all the people were Sovereign. Their sovereign land began at the soles of their feet and extended to the crown of their heads, to the tip of their noses and their extended finger tips.

Citizen's have agreed to be under a municipal govt and abide by it's rules.

A sovereign has the right to do what he will do, as long as he does no harm to his fellow man.

The Supreme Court said that the sovereignty of We The People is every bit as sacred as that of the states, so why should they not merit the same level of sovereign immunity from suit and dignity, especially in their choice of domicile, as that of the States? To wit:
The rights of individuals and the justice due to them, are as dear and precious as those of states. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former; and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the rights of individuals, or else vain is government.”
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440 (1793)]
“We The People” certainly cannot be “Sovereign” in any sense of the word if legal process can be maliciously and habitually abused by the government at great financial injury and inconvenience to them in the process of questioning or ridiculing their choice of domicile. In spite of this fact, this very evil happens daily in state and federal courts in the context of tax trials. We cannot restore the sovereignty of the people unless and until this chronic malicious abuse of legal and judicial process is ended immediately.

In recognition of the concepts in this section, the following book on the common law starkly admits that being a CIVIL STATUTORY “PERSON” is optional, and implies MEMBERSHIP in the body politic. If only lawyers now were as honest as those back at the founding of this country!:

 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,586
Likes
12,668
#80