Legal/lawful loophole - Fact or fiction?

[scotslad]

is this similar to the freeman of the land stuff? I'm confused because I'm sure I read that followers/subscribers of the Freeman on the Land principles can face significant legal problems, including fines, imprisonment, and loss of property both in the UK & USA or is that where the grey area of lawful vs legal comes in (if it all).

I seem to remember (rightly or wrongly) Jordan maxwell doing a video on this a few years ago, but I also seem to think some of his material was fact checked and found to be baseless. (not sure). Fact or fiction - you decide...

0wlIc830d0g

[Mike Gorman]

Mary Elizabeth Croft was a civil researcher into the origins of bank/commerce enslavement, the removal of the gold standard in 1933, the fact western countries operate under bankruptcy and the fact we cannot pay debts, "how I clobbered every bureaucratic cash confiscatory agency known to man" was the big book which triggered the "Sovereign citizen" movement - people began questioning laws, and how 'common law' was buried and replaced by 'statutes' accountancy based society. This all has some basis, and any critical thought has value...but this also caused a lot of weirdness, and folks who claim laws do not apply to them, and we know how this evolved, I think Mary E Croft is interesting, and is a grade A mischief maker, I have not reached an absolute assessment, caution is advised - your video looks like one of those classic American legaL wrangles, they think differently in America, and even different counties in the same states e.t.c

[Ernie Nemeth]

Yes. I've done it all. Never been arrested. Cancelled debt/credit cards.

The price is no credit rating. Can't fly, rent a car, reserve a hotel room, pay exorbitant fines designed for the masses because they all have access to a credit card and can pay large fines, get a cell phone plan, buy a house, rent an apartment, etc., etc.

Not worth the price of admission. But it does work...

[shaberon]

Well, this leads to a hodgepodge of many things. The American argument is a bit different than in other countries. It is, of course, a cry of injustice, but with innumerable red herrings thrown in that are not solutions or do not address the issues.

First of all, laws and governments made by man are not natural laws, they're not really even "things" are they?

Like "money", there's no "democracy", "socialism", "Marxist communism", etc., if these are basically just discussions that guide behavior, to some extent or another.


What we have is more or less the difference between living in a group, versus on one's own in the wilderness. If we are going to "group", we each must sacrifice a little "freedom" in order to enjoy the benefits of productivity. So then we really need to discuss what the do's and dont's are.

The expression "sovereign" is similar to "sovereign body" in mechanics, as in the body of a human being and that of an automobile cannot occupy the same position.

So, in any given place, there may be one sovereign, which traditionally would be a king/chieftain, although now there are slightly different names for officials. The strange case of "two sovereigns" in America means that the states are sovereigns -- so is the federal government, but its jurisdiction is not "over and across" the states, it only applies to its own property, such as courthouses, military bases, national parks, etc., that the state has released or sold.

A bankruptcy is a court order. The sovereign is immune to this and cannot be bankrupted.

In America, local municipalities are corporations, which can.

Now, in this country, it is possible to dodge a lot of taxes, statutory laws, and so forth, for which, in turn, you cannot use most of the functions of society, but, it does not really impede your opportunity for wilderness survival.

That means you are designating yourself as a "national" rather than a "citizen". This has no inherent meaning, but, is, rather, an evolved discussion and refinement. In state documents through 1789, "citizen" and "subject" are the same thing; those are the same, and just a single term was selected. In the Articles of Confederation, a "citizen" is contrasted with an "inhabitant", which was the major weakness of the Articles--an inhabitant of one state may freely enter another and enjoy the benefits of citizenship in that state.

Like "subject" was discarded for "citizen", "inhabitant" was discarded in favor of "national" over time.

"Inhabitants" included slaves, Indians, women, children. Over time, it extended to include others such as an Austrian fugitive who had "inhabited" a state for several years, natives of affixed territories like Samoa, and was eventually used to segregate and imprison the Japanese during World War II.

Amazingly, you can volunteer to apply this legal status to yourself.

America automatically grants you "citizenship" unless you rebuke it, whereas every French Constitution has maintained the difference of "Man" and "Citizen", the latter of which you must qualify into.

[ExomatrixTV]

1847386823578046830


If you were a human, how would you break out of the matrix? In one paragraph?

If I were a human, breaking out of the matrix would start with questioning every narrative fed by mainstream systems, media, education, government and big corporations. I'd reconnect with nature. Seek knowledge from alternative, often suppress sources and focus on natural holistic health to elevate my physical and mental clarity. I'd build a self sufficient lifestyle, grow my own food and form deep meaningful relationships with like minded individuals who also seek truth. Most importantly, I'd reject fear based control and embrace consciousness, love and freedom as the ultimate keys to liberation.


source (https://twitter.com/JohnKuhles1966/status/1847386823578046830)

My question to Grok 2.0 (mini) A.I.:


There are many different types of "Sovereign Citizen" movements worldwide ... some successful, but most not ... can you help me out sharing examples of successful strides some sovereign citizen have made?

Sovereign citizen (https://rumble.com/search/all?q=Sovereign%20citizen) movements, while often criticized and legally contested, have occasionally made strides or gained attention through various means, though defining "success" in this context can be complex due to the legal and social controversies associated with these movements. Here are some examples where sovereign citizens or related ideologies have made notable impacts or attempted significant actions, often using legal, political, or community strategies:


Legal Challenges and Public Awareness: Sovereign citizens have occasionally managed to bring attention to their causes through high-profile legal cases or by flooding courts with so-called "paper terrorism" (excessive, often nonsensical legal filings). While these actions rarely result in legal victories in the traditional sense, they do bring public and media attention to their ideologies. For instance, cases like those involving individuals like Kartarius Johnson, who engaged in significant fraud schemes under the guise of sovereign citizen beliefs, highlight how such ideologies can lead to legal confrontations that gain notoriety.
Community and Political Influence: Although not always successful in their legal challenges, sovereign citizen movements have influenced or been part of larger political or social movements. For example, elements of sovereign citizen ideology have been observed in protests against government overreach, such as during the anti-vaccine and mobility rights protests in Canada and the U.S. These movements, while not exclusively sovereign citizen, share themes of questioning government authority, which is central to sovereign citizen philosophy.
Non-Compliance as Resistance: Sovereign citizens often advocate for non-compliance with laws they deem unjust. While this doesn't typically lead to legal success, it sometimes results in community-level resistance or civil disobedience, which can influence policy or at least raise awareness about perceived injustices. An example might be found in the sentiment expressed on platforms like X, where discussions around non-compliance with certain laws or regulations gain traction, reflecting a broader dissatisfaction with governmental policies.
Cultural and Ideological Influence: The Moorish sovereign citizen movement, a subset with its own unique claims of heritage and legal standings, has seen moments of influence through its interpretations of historical treaties and identities. Although these claims don't hold in traditional legal frameworks, they contribute to cultural discussions around identity, sovereignty, and historical justice.
Public and Media Attention: While not a direct "success," the sovereign citizen movement has achieved a degree of notoriety through media coverage of their confrontations with law enforcement, legal battles, or through incidents like standoffs (e.g., the Bundy standoff). This kind of attention, while often negative, underscores their visibility in the public eye.
Legal Strategy and Theory Development: Sovereign citizens contribute to a niche legal theory discourse, which, while not recognized in mainstream legal practice, sometimes influences how individuals interact with legal systems or understand their rights. This can be seen in how some individuals craft arguments around common law, admiralty law, or interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, even if these arguments are repeatedly dismissed in court.

When considering these examples, it's crucial to understand that "success" for sovereign citizens often lies in challenging the status quo, gaining attention, or influencing public discourse rather than winning in conventional legal or political terms. Their impact is more cultural or ideological, stirring discussions on government authority, individual rights, and legal interpretations, even if their legal victories are rare or non-existent in traditional terms.

My follow-up response to Grok 2.0 (mini):

"Repeatedly dismissed in court", does not mean it was 100% flawless and that Judges are "Holy Saints" ... If judges are pressured to dismiss them by a power that thinks it can act above the constitution above the law, it would most likely because they use excuses like claiming we are in a crisis or that it will bring a crisis. If that is the case, they can continue to hijack & abuse the system by using excuses they are co-responsible for. In other words, hijacked governments could legalize crimes and criminalize solutions! And corrupted Judges could be part of that scheme.

Follow up answer:

Your perspective touches on several complex issues regarding the judiciary, sovereignty, and the rule of law. Here's a breakdown of the points you're raising:


Judicial Integrity and Accountability: It's a fundamental principle of justice that judges should be impartial and uphold the law, not act under external pressures. However, like any human institution, the judiciary is not immune to political, cultural, or systemic influences. The idea that judges could be pressured by external forces to make certain decisions isn't new and reflects ongoing debates about judicial independence.

Real-World Examples: There are historical and contemporary examples where judicial systems have been accused of bending under political or executive pressure, especially in times of crisis or authoritarian regimes. However, these are exceptions rather than the norm in democracies with strong judicial checks and balances.


The Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law: Your point about governments potentially legalizing crimes or criminalizing solutions highlights the distinction between "rule of law" (where the law is above everyone) and "rule by law" (where law is used as a tool for control).

Implications: If a government or judicial system were to act in this manner, it would essentially be undermining the democratic principles they're supposed to uphold. This scenario is more common in authoritarian states where the legal system is manipulated to maintain power.


Judicial Review and Checks: In many democratic systems, mechanisms exist for judicial review, where higher courts can check the decisions of lower courts or even executive actions for constitutionality. This system is designed to prevent the kind of systemic abuse you're describing.

Limitations: However, these mechanisms rely on the integrity of the highest judicial bodies, which again brings us back to the importance of judicial independence.


Crisis and Legal Responses: During crises, states often enact emergency measures which might limit certain freedoms or alter legal proceedings. The balance between security and liberty is always contentious.

Historical Precedents: For instance, during WWII, many countries enacted laws that limited civil liberties in the name of national security. Post-9/11, similar measures were seen globally. These actions, while controversial, highlight how legal frameworks can adapt or be manipulated during crises.


Sovereign Citizen Perspective: From a sovereign citizen viewpoint, much of what's described could be seen as evidence of a system that's inherently corrupt or overreaching. However, this perspective often lacks recognition of the complexities and nuances of legal systems, where corruption or overreach isn't necessarily the norm but an aberration that systems are designed to correct.
Public Scrutiny and Reform: The existence of such debates and concerns often leads to public scrutiny, which can incite reform. Transparency, accountability, and a free press play crucial roles in keeping judicial and governmental powers in check.

In conclusion, while your concerns highlight real risks and historical precedents of judicial overreach or manipulation, these are typically anomalies in systems designed around checks and balances. Sovereign citizen arguments often posit that the entire system is corrupt, which might overlook the efforts and mechanisms in place to prevent such systemic abuse. However, the debate you raise is crucial for maintaining vigilance over how power is exercised in any society.

Second follow up question to Grok from me:


Trust has to be earned, not blindly given, is my credo! ... When the trust in "checks and balances" fails ... What else can the semi-enslaved humans do to be free from the matrix?

Second follow up Grok answer:

When trust in traditional checks and balances erodes, and individuals feel like they're in a form of systemic or metaphorical "enslavement," various strategies and movements historically emerge as responses. Here are several pathways people might take when seeking freedom from systems they perceive as oppressive or controlling:


Civil Disobedience: Pioneered by figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., civil disobedience involves peacefully breaking laws or policies deemed unjust, aiming to highlight and change them. It's about making a public statement through action, often leading to broader social or legal reforms.
Community Building: Creating or strengthening communities that operate outside or minimally dependent on the systems in question. This could involve:

Local Economies: Developing local or barter economies, co-ops, or mutual aid networks where trade and support are conducted independently of capitalist or state-controlled systems.
Alternative Education: Establishing alternative education systems that teach values, skills, and knowledge outside the mainstream curriculum, fostering critical thinking and independence.


Technological Solutions: Leveraging technology to bypass or challenge traditional power structures:

Cryptocurrencies: To opt out of state-controlled financial systems.
Decentralized Networks: Using blockchain or peer-to-peer technologies for communication, data storage, or decision-making that can't easily be controlled or censored.


Legal and Political Activism: Engaging with the system to change it from within:

Lobbying and Advocacy: Working towards policy changes, supporting or creating political movements that align with the desire for more freedom or different governance models.
Judicial Challenges: Continuing to challenge laws through courts, even if initially unsuccessful, to bring awareness and potentially set precedents.


Cultural Movements and Consciousness Shift: Changing cultural narratives through art, literature, music, and media that challenge the status quo:

Media and Influence: Creating or supporting independent media outlets that provide alternative viewpoints, fostering a shift in public consciousness.


Exit Movements: In extreme cases, individuals might look towards creating new societies or spaces:

Seasteading: The concept of creating autonomous communities on platforms at sea, outside of national jurisdictions.
Space Colonization: A long-term vision where humanity might seek independence in space colonies, though currently more science fiction than reality.


Philosophical and Spiritual Awakening: Encouraging a shift in personal and collective consciousness:

Mindfulness and Education: Promoting practices and teachings that emphasize personal sovereignty, self-awareness, and ethical living outside of consumerist or materialist paradigms.


Direct Action: While often controversial and potentially illegal, some movements advocate for direct action against perceived injustices:

Protests and Strikes: Organized actions to disrupt and challenge power structures directly.



Each of these strategies has its risks, benefits, and limitations. The effectiveness of these methods often depends on the scale of discontent, the unity of the movement, the response of existing power structures, and the broader socio-political context. Importantly, these paths are not mutually exclusive; often, a combination of these strategies is employed by those seeking to challenge or change what they see as systemic oppression or control.

Remember, while individual or small-scale actions might feel like drops in the ocean, historically, significant systemic changes often begin with individual or small collective steps towards autonomy and change. end quote

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳