(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Before I start this article, I should make it quite clear that many in opposition of the Sovereign Citizen Movement will say whatever they can to discredit the whole thing as much as possible (normally by attacks of labels such as extremists, domestic terrorists and nut-jobs). In fact, just to show the bias of the whole thing; if you go searching for what the movement is, the majority of the results and almost all of the top results will be in opposition. However, what those in opposition don’t do and won’t do, is show you the law. Because if they do, they will quite simply prove themselves wrong.
While there is an extremist element that is unstable, hostile or dangerous and uses the movement for malicious purposes this is not the majority. This minority fringe element has been emphasized as the only definition and is quite simply not the case. There are powerful people in high places that don’t desire to lose their corrupted control mechanism and the Sovereign movement has exposed their fallacy thus representing a ‘danger’ to their ‘way of life’.
The common misconception is that a Sovereign claims that they are not subject to any laws or government. The reality however, is that everyone is Sovereign but most have not been able to properly or adequately research a conclusion that their identity is in fact a duality. The only difference between those involved in the movement and those that either don’t know about it or are in opposition, is that those involved recognize the difference between Common Law and Legalese or (Maritime Admiralty Law).
The duality I speak of is that of a Sovereign and a Strawman.
Did you know there is a difference between the United States and The United States of America? One is defined as a corporate entity and the other is a Sovereign Union of the territories of land (known as States) that make up the country. According to Title 28 – Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002, The “United States” is defined as “a Federal corporation”.
When looking through historical documents, one very important aspect to consider is the capitalization of words. Citizen, citizen, Person, person, and so on. It’s also noteworthy to look at the 14th Amendment. This is where the Constitution changes the capitalization of the word citizen (From upper to lower case). It is also noteworthy to look at the definition of the word Person.
Person – The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”
Person – Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”
Person – Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a “natural” person). 2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -
Person – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are “persons” in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per’sn. – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal person – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
The problem with becoming Sovereign, as you already are, but without the burden of representing your Corporate entity, is the practicality. Without many years of research and study of historical documents and law, you cannot adequately defend your Sovereignty. You will continually be harassed and insulted by the powers that be and those who blindly acclimate to the establishment. While we do need to fight against this tyranny that oppresses us and uses us as collateral for commerce, it is (and designed to be) a very difficult task to exclude yourself from this ‘system’.
There are some, in fact quite a few, who are actively fighting to rid themselves of this tyrannical control mechanism, but as of now it is not enough. The movement continues to grow regardless of its opposition but still remains a vast minority. The question now remains, will this movement free us before the ‘system’ itself collapses due to its unsustainability? If the ‘system’ collapses, then it won’t matter until others try to reinstate it… and they will because too many are still complacent in their belief structures. Meanwhile, fighting the corporate government and learning how to become independent of this linguistic form of slavery is vitally important.
1