This certainly hurts the sovereign citizen movement...

When police searched the run-down, two-story house on Tuller Street in Detroit, they found something that took even longtime cops by surprise: a woman chained to a stripper’s pole, with a padlock around her neck.

She’d been there for weeks, she told police — a form of punishment for trying to escape the residence.

The 25-year-old woman told investigators she was a sex slave, one of four living in the home that authorities say was a prison-like brothel run by Ryon L. Travis, 32.

He called them his “wives,” but prosecutors have accused Travis of treating the women more like slaves who were marketed online for profit. After being unchained, the woman told police that she had known Travis since she was 19, and that over the past year and a half, he had forced her and the other women into sex work.

The woman noted that Travis had been pocketing her $700 Social Security disability check each month.

“She said that the defendant posted advertisements online and in chat rooms that he had four girls for sale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward said at a March 23 detention hearing whose audio was provided to The Washington Post. “And she said that if she or the other women refused to dance or perform sex acts, the defendant would be violent with them, and that he would hit them with a closed fist, kick them or push them down.”

Police called the home a “house of horrors” — and not only because of the sex slaves Travis is believed to have kept.

Investigators also seized two cellphones that belonged to Travis, according to a criminal complaint. The phones contained graphic images of a man sexually abusing children, the complaint states.

In one of the photographs, the child was lying on a sheet with a “distinctive blue and white pattern,” according to the complaint. Police executing a search warrant photographed the same sheet on a bed in of Travis’s bedroom, the complaint states.

Travis faces multiple charges, including sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and producing, possessing and transporting child pornography, according to an indictment. He has pleaded not guilty.

At the detention hearing last month, Travis told the court that he wanted the case dismissed. NBC affiliate WDIV reported that one of Travis’s “wives” said he considers himself a “sovereign citizen.”

In addition to believing they shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes, adherents of the sovereign citizen movement maintain that should be able to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“All laws are commercial in nature, and I’m a natural-born human American man,” Travis said during the hearing. “So since all laws are commercial in nature and I choose not to do business with this court, I ask that this case be dismissed.”

Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub denied his request and ordered him detained until trial.

“You are a danger to children,” the judge said. “You are a danger to women. And you are a danger to people who are helpless in your presence.”

Police initially investigated Travis for fraud and identity theft, after he charged more than $50,000 to a local business’s credit card, according to WDIV.

Full article...

Not quite as much as it hurt those women. SPLC is also a rhetoric factory.

Last person that I knew that got caught with child porn blew his brains out. And that was the leader of a boy scout troop.

..........

It did hurt to read this amendment about personal sovereignty.
Its about a police find...a ‘House of horrors'...sexslaves...

Anarchy sovereignty are important to me!
By removing the title of the article and replace it for "this is certainly gonne hurt the sovereigns
A new section... is starting of handicapped.

Ill put it my own words...
By twisting input and meaning
I suddenly understand why ppl look at me as if im a pedofile when i say im a sovereign human.

back to the general discussion....

There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. Citizens are subjects, by definition, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.

Thanks to the republican form of government, all American people are sovereigns - until they consent otherwise. (However, one cannot exercise full sovereign prerogatives unless one has a domicile upon private property).

The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

- - -

“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]

“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

● DEVOLVE - To pass on or delegate to another.
● REGENT - One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.
● SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

The sovereign American people have the right to govern - themselves. They have supreme power only over that which they absolutely own - private property. They descend to servants, when in the government. And to be eligible to serve in the government, they must assert citizenship - which entails accepting mandatory civic duties which amount to a surrender of endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property. (This is how “Selective Service” is not involuntary servitude)

Do people in "No-Go" Sharia law zones in Michigan become Sovereign citizens? Did they fill out paperwork so they can now desecrate the city, abuse people on the street, burn cars, put up barricades against police and other emergency vehicles? Did you know that pedophilia, bigamy, and beastiality, and rape are legal in Sharia as they are prescribed in the Koran? SICK! They are truly undermining American citizens sense of what is right and wrong, especially the new immigrants. All that new immigrants seem to get indoctrinated with is Anarchy. If anyone has ever seen the movie "MadMax", . . . that is terrifying conditions. Anarchy is chaotic insanity, where no woman or child is same, or men.

Mad Hatter begs to differ...

Quote:

---

Posted by Molly4US

Anarchy is chaotic insanity, where no woman or child is same, or men.

---

Is that so, really.

'Anarchy' in the original, thus true sense of the word, means 'without ruler' but not necessarily without rules.

Thus for anyone who considers themselves truly sovereign (ie a 'sui juris' being) a state of anarchy should be welcomed as a default starting point upon which the basis for negotiation of any further contractual obligations.

cheers

mh

PS Please be aware that reading can seriously damage your ignorance...

Quote:

---

Posted by ozmirage

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

---

MEA CULPA - the above citation is BOGUS. Sigh. (Yes, I, too, was a victim of Patriot Mythology)

However, there are plenty of other citations that express the opposite point - that citizens have consented to be governed, and thus surrendered their sovereignty.


= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority.


Skeptical?
Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (qualified ownership of estate, via ad valorem taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
Make no mistake!

• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.). Citizens, like the Founders, have pledged their lives, property and sacred honor in service to others and to the government.
ONLY Non-citizen nationals (people) retain their endowed rights.
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
. . . . . . . . . . .
If you were told that to claim citizenship was akin to a suicide mission, would you still do it?

You are a hoot! I, possibly with one foot in the grave, would love to drill down on the subject of removing to possession of my sovereign account, of which neither my parents, who seemingly sold me out to this paradise of rights, had neither instruction on the existence of the subject nor did the daughter they kidnapped into a system of slavery none of us were aware of, all disastrous to our lives. I passed through schools with honors and never heard of the subject until after retirement. I would call that enslavement with deliberation, a plot to dumb down, misdirect, control, and profit from human ignorance.

Would you be so kind as to recommend a book or writing which you consider to be most knowledgeable on the subject of regaining sovereignty, telling of its pros and cons. I assume that your amusing drawing represents yourself in the profession of law, possibly as a judge in the State of Georgia. OOSA remains a mystery to me. You have a sense of humor. As an afterthought, perhaps OOSA means Order of Sovreign Association or America?