I love shit like this. Reminds me of the guys 15 or 20 years ago who seceded from the Union on behalf of Texas and declared themselves the government of a Republic of Texas that encompassed the state's original boundaries. "We have Aspen, we have Vail, this is very good" I think the guy said at the time.
The part of Coming into the Country about Joe Vogler is interesting along these lines.
Somehow I feel certain that she's writing "UNITED STATES CORPORATION" in all-caps not for emphasis, but because she thinks that's the correct reference for it, along the lines of the straw man concept.
A the father of a childhood friend is affliated with these people from a leftish-libertarian stance. It ... makes me twitchy.
Incidentally, it looks like this candidate dropped out after winning the state senate nomination unopposed. It seems to be a fairly Democratic district, though.
3L Huh, I think my (right-wing occasionally off the grid) uncle was involved with those folks back in the 1980s and 90s. Maybe he is still. He skipped my grandfather's funeral four years ago because (we think) he was concerned that there might be a warrant out for him and polive waiting at the service. I'd heard about the sovereign citizen concept before, but didn't put it together until reading that profile.
These people are hilarious until they try to lure federal judges to kangaroo "sovereign citizen's courts" located in out-of-the-way truckstops on rural highways.
I love the "clearly". Also The Capitalization. That's good stuff.
I don't find this stuff funny at all.
No, I like The Capitalization. Like "Robbing Us and All Future Generations of Americans of Our Treasure". I don't really care for THE CAPITALIZATION.
I should know better than to try to apply logic, but what's this person's position regarding the legitimacy of the state government of Iowa? Is Iowa violating Iowa's constitution in recognizing the consensus-reality government of the USA, electing Senators and Congresspeople, participating in the electoral college, etc? Doesn't she need to overthrow the state government before starting on the federal?
The CONSTITUTION of 1787 is MAGIC JUJU written by WIZARDS and, if we just do everything exactly as it says, all political problems will disappear.
The Corporation did pretty well driving the Germans from France. Maybe a little more admirable than the conquest of Mexico. And, you know, the Corporation got rid of slavery and has been making some real progress against the consequences. The pre-1860 Republic not so much. I think I'll stick with the one we have, even if it does let The Black Guy be in charge.
I see no reason to pay attention to this woman and her claims to be the true holder of sovereignty. That so-called Seal Of The Great State Of Iowa on her letter is clearly the product of some sort of amateurish and ephemeral post-1900 printing technology. I see no evidence of embossing, a watermark or even a rubber stamp.
I should know better than to try to apply logic, but what's this person's position regarding the legitimacy of the state government of Iowa? Is Iowa violating Iowa's constitution in recognizing the consensus-reality government of the USA, electing Senators and Congresspeople, participating in the electoral college, etc? Doesn't she need to overthrow the state government before starting on the federal?
On her FB campaign page, one comment "liked" by the campaign account says:
The only way for us to take our Federal Government is to win in local and state races.
They seem to like them some Frenchified words. Isn't de jure a soup they sell at that fancy place?
I don't find this stuff funny at all.
Godamn feds never find anything funny. Seriously though, these guys don't recognize local law enforcement and are dangerous as hell. I hear anything resembling sovereign citizen talk and I start thinking maybe this conversation will continue with a gun in my hand.
The real gun, not the euphemism one.
In between the real gun and no gun on the force continuum is the finger gun. "Bang Bang!"
Don't make me finger bang you Moby.
I confess: when I saw news of this earlier today, I couldn't figure out what exactly about the 14th amendment she (or they) don't like.
And she blames government abuse, invasive TSA screenings, "Obamacare," and the 14th amendment on the corrupt "United States Corporation.
I haven't been keeping up with the rhetoric on these matters, but feel as though I should know what the 14th amendment bit is about.
There does not seem to be uniformity of opinion on the exact ramifications. But the capitalization is a common element:
The significance of this is that, as a corporation, the United States has no more authority to implement its laws against "We The People" than does Mac Donald Corporations, except for one thing -- the contracts we've signed as surety for our strawman with the United States and the Creditor Bankers. These contracts binding us together with the United States and the bankers are actually not with us, but with our artificial entity, or as they term it "person", which appears to be us but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
26: Maybe. Does the 14th amendment go toward the inability of states to allow business owners to exclude those they might want to exclude? That would be the Equal Protection Clause?
Ron Paul and his ilk are fond of saying that proprietors should be free to exclude blacks (say) if they wish.
Obviously, non-standard capitalization is a sign of evil. Look at the iPod and related.
This seems to tie it together:
Among the various subjects of energetic sovereign citizen revisionism, perhaps none is more important than the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868, the Amendment had several aims, including the guaranteeing of United States citizenship for the ex-slaves. But to sovereign citizens it did much more; they claim that before its ratification, virtually no one was a "citizen of the United States." One would previously have been a citizen of the republic of Ohio or of some other state; only residents of Washington, D.C., or federal territories were citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment created an entirely new class of citizens, they argue, one that anybody, theoretically, could voluntarily join.
But to become a citizen of the United States was to willingly subject oneself to the complete authority of the federal and state governments; clearly, no one would want to do this. The government, therefore, tricked people into entering into its jurisdiction and that of the "corporate" state government by having them sign contracts with it. The trick was that people did not even realize they were signing contracts: these included items like Social Security cards, drivers' licenses, car registrations, wedding licenses or even, as Terry Nichols noted, hunting licenses and zip codes.
The sovereign citizen solution to this problem is the one that Nichols used. Since these contracts were made without people's knowledge, they could be declared invalid and torn up. Social Security numbers, licenses and permits, even birth certificates could be revoked, allowing people thereby to become "sovereign citizens," freed from the jurisdiction of the "de facto" government and courts. They were once more subject only to the "common law."
The development of this theory resulted in a movement whose members believe not only that virtually all levels of government have no jurisdiction over them whatsoever, but also that acceptance of any government regulation or permit means entering into a "contract" with the government that results in the loss of liberty and freedom. Consequently, committed sovereign citizens resist, sometimes with violence, nearly every form of governmental authority, from police enforcing traffic regulations to inspectors enforcing building codes. Unsurprisingly, they end up in constant conflict with the law.
I have a theory that the sovereign citizen movement is a kind of cargo cult. Not the instigators, who are just selling books while sowing dragon's teeth. But I can imagine that someone who feels hemmed in by powerful forces wielding incomprehensible legalese (creditors, employers, government agencies, etc.) might be very comforted by the idea that they could crack the code and make incomprehensibility work for them.
I have a theory that the sovereign citizen movement is a kind of cargo cult.
I was just thinking something like that in the kitchen—the faith (as described in the link in 3) that if you just get the wording, etc., just right the legal system will suddenly start showering you with monies or whatever. (It's also kind of touching in a deranged way that they think that this apparently sinister, long-lived corporation will bow down before them if they get the invocation right.)
Not sure what the cargo here is, though.
The Redemption Theory stuff is interesting, in that it reflects both a lack of faith in the legitimacy of elected (air quotes?) goverment and, at the same time, a faith that said government will have to respect its own rules. Congress can dissolve the original USA, replace it with some new secret government and sell the value of its citizens to other countries, but if you find the right set of legal instruments, they'll have to respect those and recognize your right to not pay taxes or childsupport or whatever.
In fact, or "in point of fact," as the author might have it, she seems a bit confused over the meaning of de facto.
But seriously, my American friends, you should let these people go. Unshackle the bonds which leave them groaning under the weight of food and drug administration and of highway regulation. Hell, why not release them from the tyranny of the provision of actual highways? Don't you have some unoccupied land in Alaska or somewhere else far from the mainland that you could give them, just to make them go away? (but no, you can't give them northern Alberta).
Right, northern Saskatchewan it is.
31/32: Perhaps the out-of-place naivete is part of a process. Discover the truth behind the lies, put it into action, spend some time in jail for tax evasion or assaulting an officer, and then get invited to the inner circle, i.e., a full-fledged terrorist cell.
28 -- That is (or was?) the Commerce Clause. Ollies Barbeque and all that.
Don't you have some unoccupied land in Alaska or somewhere else far from the mainland that you could give them, just to make them go away?
OH HELL NO. Alaska has too many nuts like this already.
Not sure what the cargo here is, though.
Freedom, of course.
Isn't it part of the great american belief in the law? The great brooding omnipresence in the sky and all/
I am pretty fascinated by this stuff.
Alaska has too many nuts like this already.
Well, sure. Alaska: the last refuge of scoundrels, and of survivalists, and of convicted felons who are on the lam. But do you really need Alaska? is what I am asking. Would you be willing to sacrifice the ice-capped grandeur and the polar bears in exchange for a measure of sanity restored to the mainland? (and no, you can't have northern Saskatchewan...).
It's not just polar bears, you know. There are also grizzly bears.
Fuck that, what Teo said. Alaska as well as a lot of Western states have too many of this type of nut around. Shipping them all up there might have unacceptable consequences such as interrupting my Costco's supply of wild caught cod and salmon.
Man, wikipedia has some great bear pictures. Polar; Kodiak; Grizzly.
OK, I'm at my in-laws and a bit Becksy, but 44 made me laugh plenty.
That polar bear is very serious, and I'm pretty sure I went to high school with that kodiak.
41: Oh, I know. I am aware of all ursine traditions.
But if it comes down to access to universal health care versus access to majestically beautiful but potentially deadly predators: well, again, do you really need Alaska that badly?
I've been told there is strategic oil kept in reserve there, which is important for various oil-based strategies.
MC: You know I live in Alaska, right?
Anyway, yes, I personally need Alaska quite a lot, and would prefer to see it not dominated by crazy people any more than it already is.
The linked post links to the group's website, which includes this statement:
The United States was incorporated February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419, Chap. 62, 41st Congress, 3rd Session), the purpose being "an Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia, reorganized June 8th, 1878, (20 Stat. 102, Chapter 180, 45th Congress, 2nd Session) as "an Act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia" aka US Inc. Uniform Commercial Code, UCC9-307 (h) states "Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
Adding to 30, I think the argument is that by incorporating DC as a federal territory, the United States centered its location on that one spot, with everything in the states being by implication not within the "corporation." That seems to be why they cite 1871 instead of 1868 as the year everything went bad, even though the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
It's almost like a moderates' compromise: if you choose 1868 as your restore point*, you either need to advocate repeal or maybe even the overthrow of the U.S., but if you choose 1871, you can say your goal is to confine "U.S. Inc." to DC and leave the states alone. Although I guess you still need 14th Amendment repeal. Hmm, on closer inspection, this doesn't really make much sense!
*They seem to have automatic updates turned off.
Hmm, on closer inspection, this doesn't really make much sense!
Shocking!
Thanks for digging in and figuring out where the specifics were coming from; I was curious about that, but not enough to subject myself to reading any of this stuff.
Gosh, Mary Catherine; these people are human problems, and it's not fair to threaten the bears with them. We should probably glom around them like leukocytes our own sane selves.
Anyone? Anyone?
I am pleased to find that UCC 9-307 (h) really does say that the US is located in DC. Shame they never made it to (k).
It is literally magical thinking. Earthsea style. The Dragon of Pendor may be bigger than a house and have teeth like scimitars, but you can command it if you refer to it by its true name - then it's helpless, you see.
Every Mensa group I've ever visited has been infested with these folks. It's the #1 reason I never joined Mensa.
||
A group of Chinese tourists has lined up at the podium to board this flight despite being in boarding group 6 or something. The airline personnel insist on boarding the flight in the correct order. Result: chaos.
|>
|| NYT: "Image Comics, founded on the idea of artists having creative and financial control over their characters, is generating much buzz in its industry." Is it 1995 all over again?
|>
58: Cargo cults, magical thinking and Image Comics all seem to go together. Especially if one recalls the company's early produce: "Let's fake the X-Men! With Jim Lee!"
Interesting that they've relocated from La Jolla to Berkeley.
I don't know about you, but I'm waiting for my variant holographic image cover of Youngblood #1 to fund my retirement.
But I can imagine that someone who feels hemmed in by powerful forces wielding incomprehensible legalese (creditors, employers, government agencies, etc.) might be very comforted by the idea that they could crack the code and make incomprehensibility work for them.
There is, somewhere in this phenomenon, a lesson about the power over us that we give our hermeneutics. If I were feeling particularly acid this morning, I would suggest comparisons to the theodicies of left- and right-wing economics, but, you know, an exercise for the reader; I'll leave it at suggesting that these people are but one or two formative experiences away from the guy who knows too many OBP statistics by heart and talks too much about his fantasy football team. It's human to gin up a mythology of redemption and meaning in the face of Being's indifference.
60: Hey, who isn't? WildC.A.T.s for life, yo.
4: affliated with these people from a leftish-libertarian stance
One of the nice things about the Sovereign Citizens is that they tend to make even the wackiest, Ted Kaczynski-loving, anti-civ nutjobs in the anarchist movement look like models of probity and erudition by comparison. We don't really give a shit if there's a gold fringe on the flag, we'll burn it either way!
One thing I always wonder is how these people exist day-to-day. I mean, either they're not as pure about rejecting all collusion with the Pretend United States as they advocate others being, or they've all got big stockpiles of gold coins under their mattresses. Perhaps they are leprechauns?
Also, it's funny that, aside from this monomania about the legitimacy of the government, most of them seem virtually identical in mode and affect to many of my grumpy old right-wing rural male relatives. It's like they were just humming along, railing against Congress and the income tax like normal old conservative guys, and then one day someone whispered this incantation in their ear, and now they have an Anti-Government Ear Worm playing in their heads constantly. Very strange.
Not to dismiss entirely such political thought as they may be capable of, but history (e.g., Terry Nichols) suggests that many of these people are nudged in the direction of such idiocy (in the strict sense of the term and otherwise) by encounters with the rule of law: divorce proceedings, charges of child abuse or domestic violence, bankruptcy, tax liens, etc., etc.
All of them I heard of while I was growing up lost farms.
Despite having a great-uncle and several friend who are smithies or, if not smithies per se, otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts, this is the first thing I've seen that really made me want to try it out myself:
http://www.wimp.com/cuttinginstrument/
Here's one that has us back under the Brits. I'm surprised that the LaRouchies have not made common cause.
All this was done under, VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS. In English Law. Courts established in the queen's possessions beyond the seas, with jurisdiction over maritime causes, including those relating to prize. The United States of America is lawfully the possession of the English Crown per original commercial joint venture agreement between the colonies and the Crown, and the Constitution, which brought all the states (only) back under British ownership and rule. The American people, however, had sovereign standing in law, independent to any connection to the states or the Crown. This fact necessitated that the people be brought back, one at a time, under British Rule, and the commercial process was the method of choice in order to accomplish this task. First, through the 14th Amendment and then through the registration of our birth certificate and property. All courts in America are Vice-admiralty courts in the Crown's private commerce.
What's with the sovereign-citizen folks being pro-life? I don't see anything inherently pro-life about the magic words.
67 was me...by which admission I am owned by the English Crown.
68: Yeah, I've never been able to figure out if most of the SC's feel that's an ancillary issue that they just happen to agree on, or if it's really a core concern. Not that I have really tried that hard.
Shorter Stanley: Why cant we have more intellectually coherent nutjobs?
This nonsense is being exported now and has gained a certain popularity with people who are financially ruined:
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055521538?page=2
It's almost like a moderates' compromise: if you choose 1868 as your restore point*, you either need to advocate repeal or maybe even the overthrow of the U.S., but if you choose 1871, you can say your goal is to confine "U.S. Inc." to DC and leave the states alone. Although I guess you still need 14th Amendment repeal. Hmm, on closer inspection, this doesn't really make much sense!
The website of the movement-subsection described in the OP has a timeline chock full of turning points. 1790, the states are abolished. 1863, the Lieber Code takes away everyone's rights. It's all very overdetermined.
I'm surprised that the LaRouchies have not made common cause.
Talks broke down over the importance of intercontinental freight infrastructure.
66: but he isn't wearing proper, or any, eye protection!
What's with the sovereign-citizen folks being pro-life?
It wouldn't have anything to do with the magic words, but per the link in 3, the movement was rooted in white supremacism, so the idea may be that we can't be killing our little white babies, else the darkies will eventually take over. {Please pardon that language.}
That would call for being pro-life for whites only, however. Too bad none of this makes sense.
On a side note, I would *really* like someone to carefully interview the Iowa politician of the OP on these questions. One suspects she'd sound like Michelle Bachmann in response, i.e. unresponsive, glassy-eyed, and robotic.
74: Actually, I thought about that and resolved to be fully suited up in welding clothes if I ever started blacksmithing.
fwiw, my housemate is a metal sculptor and has done blacksmithing and bronze pouring and whatnot, so he can probably tell you what protections you need for a given task, if you'd want guidance.
Also, that knife looks like a bear to use for any practical purpose.
The anti-abortion stuff is just part of the "states' rights" part of the far-right-wing two-step.
If you want the government to control something, say "The federal government is being tyrannical and autocratic in its encroachment on a state's freedom to make its own laws." If you want the government to not control something, say "The federal and state governments are being tyrannical and autocratic in their encroachment on people's freedom to do what they want."
On the other hand, when the gubmint is actually breaking its own rules, there's always this strategy (which we all know very well often ends up with a principled radical spending some months as a guest of the DOC): http://pastebin.com/q0hTkwFh
77: I'd just really like to have welding clothes. For fun, and because I am a homosexual (That's an in-joke. References available upon request. Or if you know my real name, just type "[Natilo's Real Name] homosexual" into your googleizer.)
78: Yeah, I would have made a more normal handle.
81: I choose to speculate. Welding clothes aren't really very sexy in practice. Or rather, foundry clothes aren't. The activity itself is.
You should really do the search, it's pretty funny.
Shit! Now it is gone. Oh well. There was a funny blog post from this homophobic asshole accusing me of being queer because I was impressed with an iron pour and wrote an article about it. It was not as over the top as the sovereign citizen stuff, but still pretty kooky.
I'm pretty busy, so I'm just skimming the thread. I did want to join in with everyone in congratulating Natilo for coming out.
Fucking hell. 91 was me. Every time I make a joke the "Name" field gets dropped. I should probably take that as a hint from a higher power.
You have the British Crown to thank for that, Walt.
Congrats on the job, Teo, but I thought you already had one?
Congratulations. I may have to look in Alaska when I'm done with this degree.
Teo's current job is a limited term appointment, IIRC.
Good work, teo. You've now firmly established the Unfogged Alaskan beachhead. New plan for the dodecahedron-agon-con!
Teo, congratulations! (and no, I didn't know you lived in Alaska...sorry about the wingnut relocation proposal...).
