DHS Funded Report: Sovereign Citizens Greatest Threat To U.S.

[jerry]

Back in April, 2014, I wrote an article entitled “FBI Visiting Gun Shops To Investigate ‘People Talking About Big Government,” where I reported the fact that FBI Counterterrorism agents were visiting South Carolina gun shops in order to gain information regarding potentially “suspicious” customers. These “suspicious” people were not those suspected of Muslim extremism but Americans who were concerned with big government.

The agent who approached the gun shop discussed in my article was actually quoted as saying “If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in. You don’t have to be so worried about that. What we’re really looking for are people talking about being sovereign such as sovereign citizens or people talking about Big Government.”

At the time, I received a substantial amount of skepticism from those who found the agents words to be too unbelievable to be legitimate.

However, with the revelation of a recent survey conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), all doubt should be removed as to the veracity of the original report.

This is because the START survey “Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes,” has determined that the Sovereign Citizen movement – not Islamic extremism – is the number one threat for domestic terrorism inside the United States.

RT reports that the survey “found that “52 percent of respondents agreed and 34 percent strongly agreed that sovereign citizens were a serious terrorist threat” as opposed to 39 percent of respondents who agreed and 28 percent who strongly agreed that Islamic extremists were the most serious threat.”

To be fair, Islamic extremism was considered as one of the top three greatest threats to domestic internal security. Also in the top three, was the American Patriot Militia movement, a favorite target of the FBI for 25-30 years despite the fact that the American militia movement is only connected to terrorism in the fantastic realms of propaganda pushed by government agencies.

The report reads that:


First, law enforcement perceptions about what is a serious threat in their community has changed significantly over time. Law enforcement is much more concerned about sovereign citizens, Islamic extremists, and militia/patriot group members compared to the fringe groups of the far right, including Christian Identity believers, reconstructed traditionalists (i.e., Odinists), idiosyncratic sectarians (i.e., survivalists), and members of doomsday cults. In fact, sovereign citizens were the top concern of law enforcement, but the concern about whether most groups were a serious terrorist threat actually declined for most groups (e.g., the KKK; Christian Identity; Neo-Nazis; Racist Skinheads; Extremist Environmentalists; Extreme Animal Rights Extremists).

This response, of course, is also interesting considering the fact that mainstream media outlets as well as politicians and other commentators have been promoting the idea that there is not only the possibility but the probability that terrorist attacks will occur here in the United States and in Europe as a result of Western-backed death squad fighters returning from the battlefield in Syria and other locations.

Other groups considered potential domestic terrorists include

1. Sovereign Citizens

2. Islamic Extremists/Jihadists

3. Militia/Patriot

4. Racist Skinheads

5. Neo-Nazis

6. Extreme Animal Rightists

7. Extreme Environmentalists

8. Ku Klux Klan

9. Left-wing Revolutionaries

10. Extreme Anti-Abortion

11. Black Nationalists

12. Extreme Anti-Tax

13. Extreme Anti-Immigration

14. Christian Identity

15. Idiosyncratic Sectarians

16. Reconstructed Traditions

According to RT


The officers surveyed said the most useful law enforcement entities in combating terrorism include state/local fusion centers, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force(s), the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

In addition, the officers said that the most valuable open-source materials they use to gather information are the Internet, human intelligence sources, and the media.

START is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security with an initial $12 million grant in 2005 which was subsequently renewed in 2008. The DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate supports START but the program also receives funding from other agencies, universities, and private organizations.

Regardless of what one may think of the Sovereign Citizen movement, the fact is that the Homeland Security police state behemoth that was justified under the pretext of protecting Americans from Islamic extremism and al-Qaeda (which is funded and directed by the very same government), is now fully turned inward toward the American people and all who may dissent from the dictates of the State.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/dhs-f....zADmwPg4.dpuf

[gripreaper]

The term "Sovereign Citizen" is a misnomer at best and outright propaganda at worst. If you are sovereign, then you are not a citizen. You cannot be both.

Citizenry is also misapplied. If you are a citizen, then you are a statutory citizen who has abdicated all of your rights to the state, are considered an asset of the state, an incompetent ward to be governed by statutes and rules. You are dead, mute, an empty vessel lost at sea, and are considered salvage. Anyone who has studied the true history knows that the G5 nations are bankrupt, all peoples and their labor have been pledged as chattel for the bankruptcy, they have a fictional counterpart which they are adhered to, and give the state a line of credit to be drawn upon against their labor.

A sovereign, on the other hand, has recognized the nature of citizenry and would choose, in a non violent way, to extricate themselves from unilateral contracts of adhesion to the draconian totalitarian mandates of statutory citizenship. This requires fully leaving the Admiralty system of commerce and the use of fiat debt currencies, and the severing of all ties to those who are statutory citizens. Those who "claim" to be sovereign are most likely not, and get themselves in trouble when they mix both sovereignty with citizenry.

So, in a sense, the article is correct. Anyone who attempts to straddle and play both sides of the fence WILL get themselves in trouble, and most are not willing to truly go the sovereign route and walk away from the benefits and privileges of citizenry, which comes at a huge price.

The system is set up to create indenture, to where it is almost impossible not to participate. Just try living without Federal Reserve Promissory Notes, without any contact with those who are citizens, do all the necessary steps to be sovereign, and deal with the citizen compliance systems in place on a daily basis.

There are many examples of those who have tried, those who have paid with their lives, those who are incarcerated for trying, and those who have been ostracized for trying to help others. It's not any easy game.

Alphabet enforcement agencies have been trained to play hardball with anyone who shows any signs of not being a fully indentured and obedient slave, and anyone who attempts to jump the fence and leave the plantation has to deal, not only with the enforcement agencies, but often times their own family and friends.

Education is key. Until enough people are sick and tired of being sick and tired, understand what has happened to them, and are willing to make the necessary changes in their own lives and help coalesce the necessary like energy and resonance to take back their power, realizing how powerful they really are, then it wont change.

There are many threads here which deal with the history as well as solutions. I would encourage those who want to learn to purview these resources.

[sigma6]

Citizenry is also misapplied. If you are a citizen, then you are a statutory citizen who has abdicated all of your rights to the state, are considered an asset of the state, an incompetent ward to be governed by statutes and rules. You are dead, mute, an empty vessel lost at sea, and are considered salvage. Anyone who has studied the true history knows that the G5 nations are bankrupt, all peoples and their labor have been pledged as chattel for the bankruptcy, they have a fictional counterpart which they are adhered to, and give the state a line of credit to be drawn upon against their labor.

A sovereign, on the other hand, has recognized the nature of citizenry and would choose, in a non violent way, to extricate themselves from unilateral contracts of adhesion to the draconian totalitarian mandates of statutory citizenship. This requires fully leaving the Admiralty system of commerce and the use of fiat debt currencies, and the severing of all ties to those who are statutory citizens. Those who "claim" to be sovereign are most likely not, and get themselves in trouble when they mix both sovereignty with citizenry.

EXAMPLES OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION ARE COMING OUT

Well said, I would agree with much of this in principle, as we both know though, it's the application. This is technically "high level" stuff, for people who still trying to differentiate what is statutory vs common law vs a court of equity and how do we should act in each one, etc.. Here is an excerpt from a Skype conversation I was just having with someone on this issue that is slowly starting to "crystallize" in people's minds (just think, we are growing a seed of consciousness, I thought would never take root here at Avalon!!!)

"... My understanding is there is wide variation of interpretations (of "PERSON", I know a lawyer acknowledged there were 3 types in his understanding, a natural person (man with rights and duties), a corporate person and sadly I missed the third one he mentioned ... ; o

I think the natural person is an "individual" i.e. the combining of the two... ie. a physical living body with a status of of Person (rights, duties and obligations) attached. But regardless that there are many forms of "Person"...

My major premise is that we have the option of establishing the nature of our relationship to the PERSON that the statutory court is referring to, the only one that they, as representative of the State (defacto or not) can claim jurisdiction over...

And that is largely because we haven't stepped up to the plate, and given notice how we intend to participate. We have a relationship to that NAME. It was derived from the "given name" (and given is given)

Thus we provided the "consideration" ie. the given name, they created the form. It's all representational. Virtual. Fictional. Not to say it is irrelevant. But open to interpretation. That is to say, this is why our expression of intention can have a lot of influence here.

Settlor: (Black’s Law 4th ed)
One who furnishes the consideration for the creation of a trust, though in form the trust is created by another.


------------------------------------------

And they are not actually "mistaking us for the Person" that is symbolic again. They are establishing an interpretation of presumption based on our words/actions. A presumption of constructive trust interpretation, as according to the definition, they are "...immediately raising a constructive trust and fastening it upon the conscience of the legal owner so as to convert him into an actual trustee..." (Black's Law 4th)

and if you look at the definition of de son tort trustee, it describes perfectly what happens in millions of statutory courts each day to each one of us... AND it makes a DIRECT REFERENCE to ... Constructive Trust... so it is both revealing and confirming...

De son tort trustee:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...t-trustee.html
Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee.

Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts. 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.

[Question: If we are having trusteeship imposed on us via a "remedial device" Who do you think the "actual trustee" should have been or was originally?]


------------------------------------------

If the above confuses you (and I wouldn't blame you, and you need an immediate solution. And you don't mind experiencing failure, in order to give it a try... Be clear that you are 1) in a statutory court, so none of the above I just talked about would dare to be recognized by them. They can only SEE legal title. Equitable title or interest is relegated to the private. I know many who have tried and failed now... "I am not the NAME" (the worst thing you can say, as it only red flags you and it clearly shows you haven't focused on the key issue... ie. WHO ARE YOU, (especially in RELATION to the NAME... This is STILL the hardest question to answer... believe it or not...) i.e. Stating who you are NOT doesn't say much to WHO YOU ARE. In trust, several key parties need to be identified. One of them is who is the beneficiary.

And so I will share this from the world of "practical application" land! (ie. real stories)

One lady with understanding tried to go into court regarding a $16,000 liability related to real estate fees or similar... they judged against her... she THEN proceeded to deposit a certified copy of the BC into the court case. And checked a few weeks later, and the judgement against her was "gone"

and this just in...

<< might we want to present the BC, and express the trust/our relationship to it, etc?) that worked in a Virginia case-- got it secondhand from friend that talked to the guy. He rolled in to "court" with small white flag (neutral non-combatant) I think it was minor traffic case, "judge" called his name- he said "joe...

Joe said "I believe this is the defendant you are looking for...." and handed certified copy of BC to bailiff. He said I'm not the trustee for that person, I'm the beneficiary. I don't think he ever gave his full name (first and last) as I believe that is consent to jurisdiction if no restrictive statement is said before you say the full name. I believe it is at that time you consent to jurisdiction if you don't make any prefatory statements.

Anyway... after the "judge' examined the BC for about 2 min. she said to the prosecutor "nolle prosse this case...." (don't prosecute) and it was done and over

So, I get where you are going and if we had a dozen people test this in a dozen cases we would have a good sample size to see what "worked" adn what didn't

Both these examples fit perfectly into my most recent interpretation...
Can you learn to "let go"?... It's not your property anyhow, you are just using it...
YOU CAN'T PROVE LEGAL TITLE... but can you accept that?
"USE" is a trust term. You are the recipient of a CERTIFICATE. Everything you think you "own" is actually "owned" by the Corporate Person defined on that CERTIFICATE that was created within the context of a Trust Interpretation.
Therefore you can't gain CONTROL of it, except through some means of interacting via that TRUST PROCESS, regardless what venue and level you operate from...

When the lady put her BC into the case file, (with NOTHING ELSE to incriminate herself). Do you think they were able to do a trust process in private? They have the treasury account, they have her instrument clearly labeled (in some instances) "For Treasury use only"

Another thought, I have found a definition for the word signature... "deputies handwriting". Do you know who's "signature" is on the CERTIFICATE? Take a look. Mine says "Deputy Registrar General", with signature. s.46 of the VSA, says I can use a certified copy of this document and it is "...admissible in any court, as PROOF of the FACTS so certified..." How many different ways can I say it?




Stop claiming "ownership"! Especially in liability cases!!!


In the second example this guy must have known Bill Foust, because he describes almost the exact same story...
Bill Foust Executor Advocate Revocate

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jC9mbr-c5oo

goto 53 min... and listen to the "judge and the defendant story"

emergency link, YouTube has removed a couple of Bill videos now (playing games?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZK4r5oyiKY




Links for my own reference:


Previous:
Re: Alert: Sheriffs Move To Arrest Convicted Vatican Church Leaders Bergoglio, Pachon, Welby:
ANOTHER "NUT SHELL" ON THE BC CESTUI QUE TRUST

Following:
The Concept Of Legal Person:
DEFINITIONS RELATED TO LEGAL PERSON

[sigma6]

re: Sebastion
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post895089

I want to thank you Sigma6 for your posts regarding all of this legal stuff! I read and re-read everything you post and am learning to grasp the "language" of the law from your every posting. My sincere gratitude to you. Please continue!

Good time to pull this link back up... I buried these posts across a cross sections of other posts... but this is the latest... I'm just scratching the surface, but this is just as good a place to start as any other... ;0

[Sierra]

Sigma,

BC=birth certificate?

Thanks

Sierra

[sigma6]

Posted by Sierra (here)
Sigma,

BC=birth certificate?

Thanks

Sierra

yep it's either that or British Columbia (ON) but I don't reference that province very often... lol

another is CofLB, i.e. Certificate of Live Birth, and there are few more I can't think of right now, but usually refer to that document, sometimes it's called Statement of Live Birth SoLB, I also have a legend on one of the posts, where there are a particularly large number of acronyms...

But I also have to add, it's a certificate with a picture of the CofLB on it... It is inaccurate to call the document itself the CofLB... I think that is another way they try to get us...

[sigma6]

More on that most intriguing and (hidden in plain sight) document... ':0

moved to this link

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post895792

update: returning it back to here to maintain "continuity"

Once I had a judge say "I don't see a bond here, this isn't a bond..." etc.. and she was right, it's a certificate to a security, evidence of interest, more accurately ...

DEFINITIONS RELATED TO LEGAL PERSON

(S.2 Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
"property" includes
(a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods.


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Title.aspx
Title:
"Title refers to the legal ownership of a property interest so that one having title to a property interest can withstand the assertion of others claiming a right to that ownership.
(tells me that we don't want to compete with them in the statutory public as a citizen, unless you are a masochist... since they hold legal title to original signature CofLB, which itself being a form of legal property, if you really think about it long and hard, is the actual registered owner of all property registered in the public. )


(INTERPRETATION; Definitions - Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5)
1. (1) In this Act, "security" includes,
(a) any document, instrument or writing commonly known as a security,
(b) any document constituting evidence of title to or interest in the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of any person or company,
(c) any document constituting evidence of an interest in an association of legatees or heirs,
(d) any document constituting evidence of an option, subscription or other interest in or to a security,

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/subscription
Subscription;
"The act of writing one’s name under a written instrument; the affixing of one’s signature to any document, whether for the purpose of authenticating or attesting it, of adopting its terms as one’s own expressions, or of binding one’s self by an engagement which it contains".

"State law determines the enforceability of oral and written subscriptions. Courts have regarded subscriptions that are not supported by some consideration as mere offers that become legally binding when accepted or when the recipient of the promise has acted in reliance on the offers. The promise that forms the subscription need not be to pay money but might be for the performance of other acts, such as to convey land or provide labor for construction".

The offered subscription must be accepted if it is to legally bind the subscriber. It is essential that acceptance occur within a reasonable time, since, as an offer, the subscription can be revoked any time prior to its acceptance. A subscription is also revocable upon notice given by the subscriber if a condition upon which it is based has not been performed. A subscriber may be prevented from claiming revocation in situations where it would be contrary to the interests of justice.

"note: in the case of the BC, for the promise to be binding, the subscriber must receive the benefit".
(as in "transfer" of beneficial ownership!)



(Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
"valuable security"
includes
(a) an order, exchequer acquittance or other security that entitles or evidences the title of any person
(i) to a share or interest in a public stock or fund or in any fund of a body corporate, company or society, or
(ii) to a deposit in a financial institution,
(b) any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order or other security for money or for payment of money,


(Vital Statistics Act (VSA) Ontario,RSO 1990, Ch V.4)
Admissibility of Certificates, etc.
46. (1) A certificate purporting to be issued under section 44 or a certified copy of a registration purporting to be issued under section 45 signed by the Registrar General or Deputy Registrar General or on which the signature of either of them is reproduced by any method is admissible in any court in Ontario as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified, and it is not necessary to prove the signature or official position of the person by whom the certificate or certified copy purports to be signed.


BC/SoB is a certificate, containing dates, registration, certificate and file numbers which are evidence of title. A manifest of cargo, registration of property.


(Change of Name Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.7)
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...c07_e.htm#s2s1
"child" means a person under the age of eighteen years; ("infant")

Person’s name
2. (1) For all purposes of Ontario law,
(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person’s birth certificate or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;
implies an authorization to contract in the public, "right to use" (which is a definition of property)


...and let's not forget what a "person" is...
(Pocket Criminal Code 2009 - Section 2 Definitions, pg 6)
"every one", "person" and "owner", and similar expressions, (note: words defined)
include Her Majesty and an organization; (definition)

(note: do not be confused by this 6 word definition of "person")

... more evidence..
(Police Officer’s Manual)
also The Canadian Dictionary of Law:
PERSON. "persons are of two classes only---natural persons and legal persons. A natural person is a human being that has capacity for rights or duties. A legal person is anything to which the law gives a legal or fictitious existence and personality with capacity for rights and duties. The Only legal person known to our law is the corporation----the body corporate"



(S.2 Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
"property" includes
(a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods.


Now the question remains HOW you use it...

(Notice written on Birth Certificates in the UK)
"This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is not evidence of the identity of the person presenting it"

This tells me a few things, it validates other research that it was actually recommended by the Deputy Registrar herself (whose signature is on the BC) that we SHOULD NOT use it as "identification"... and secondly that it is understood that there are clearly contexts where it can be PRESENTED...

(an anvil should be hitting you on the head...right about..... NOW!)

....in any event... how that is done, is the subject of much research and conjecture... Rod Class apparently has recently been taken into custody... and he was clearly moving towards an interpretation based on trust, equity
Here's a link to the Sep 28, 2014 Private Call on "The Constitution, Equity and Trusts"
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-902772.mp3 54 min
This may give you some background on what strategy Rod was using.

And also note the similarity to the attack on Dean Clifford, same thing, as soon as he started to move toward an interpretation on trust and equity...


I have a fair idea of what may have happened, but getting a hold of these people is going to be difficult given their current state, and getting them to hear me is another issue. And sadly, Karen Hudes was on Rod's show... she could help him in a snap... but I don't think that is going to happen for a number of reasons...


and lastly (not to be cryptic, but it is such a monstrously HUGE list of definitions...) But "ownership" is NOTHING what you think it is...