Declaration of Sovereignty?!

[Mishelle]

Has anyone ever written a declaration of sovereignty and sent it to their government?  Or considered it?

 

I found this interview to be very inspiring and at about 1:20 she talks about doing this and changing her name and what a great sense of liberation and joy she felt doing so. 

 

I wonder if y'all know of others who have taken these steps officially and what their experiences might have been.

 

thanks for sharing any info

[cobra2411]

I did back in 2007. I filed it at my local courthouse. It does change the way you think, but it's still just a piece of paper that can be ignored. I find the best way to deal with the state is to simply keep your head low.

[Mishelle]

thanks for reply cobra!  yes, I get it, keeping head low is safest, yet I'm just so tempted to scream! learning to bite my tongue more though

[cobra2411]

I became an anarchist by way of becoming a constitutionalist, and when I was going through that the concept of sovereignty came up. There is much discussion about when and where it all went wrong, but for me it was a slow erosion that killed the constitution, just like every other form of government that I know of that proceeded it. In a nutshell the assertion is that the rules changed at some point and we no longer are under common law with the concept that all are equal. We are now under UCC jurisdiction which has some key differences. That's where UCC 1-308 comes from. It says if there are conflicts between common law and UCC then you can select common law, but only if you reserved your right to that in a timely manner. Fascinating and somewhat intoxicating stuff - thinking there may be some magic elixir that will fix everything. One of the biggest things I see wrong with it is that most people are no versed enough to catch the nuances and the state isn't as concerned with hiding what it does. So you may be 100% right, they'll still speak double speak and steam roll right over you. 

 

I recently was issued a ransom note (citation) for having the wrong sticker on my truck. Here in the tax farm known as Pennsylvania, we have to have our vehicles inspected annually. The inspection station was out of stickers and I forgot to go back. When I showed up in court to fight it, the officer who wrote the ticket was nowhere to be found. Now, by rights, since the detective who showed up wasn't an attorney and couldn't represent them I could have moved for a dismissal. However, the judge would tell me that this is normal and we have to be mindful of our public servants and that he has to be out saving the world - blah blah blah... Then he would find me guilty and that would be that. One bug quickly squashed. I could have tried my right to travel arguments, etc and still would have been chasing my tail. So armed with a letter from the mechanic who inspected the truck I simply talked to the Judge and asked him to understand. It's not a safety issue, the truck was inspected. I simply forgot to go back to get the new sticker. Since it was inspected I put it off in my mind till next year. He moaned and groaned and did my a favor... And I thanked him for his understanding. Had I played the sovereignty angle I could still be sitting in jail for contempt or some other BS charge... 

 

So I don't know... It's very frustrating. I see people all the time that fully support the system. With the Boston marathon upon us again I'm reminded of people chanting "USA - USA - USA" while the city was shut down and military troops were going door to door in a state of martial law... I see the Free Stuff Army - the welfare entitlement gang every time I go to the city and it sickens me. They're never going to vote to do away with the theft of my money. Same with the public unions. With a private union you have the workers uniting against the greedy boss with the customer as the final say. Look at Hostess, Management knew what the customer would pay and when the union demands exceeded that they shut down. You don't have that with public unions because the taxpayer is the customer and they'll force you to pay through threat of violence. 

 

My answer is now to go Galt. Reduce and reuse and minimize your earnings. I'm keeping my old cars running, I'm moving to a place that costs less, I'm doing what ever I can to reduce my income needs. That will reduce what I have to pay in taxes and there's nothing they can do about it. If enough people do it at a time that they are consuming more and more money it will choke them off and make them die faster. The only question is what happens then... 

[dsayers]

I like to use the wild beast eating your picnic scenario. Sure, that's YOUR sandwich, but there's nothing to gain in provoking the beast that's just going to maul you for soliciting their attention.

 

To do anything within THEIR system legitimizes their system. I say pay your protection money and otherwise live like there isn't a State. You'll be a lot happier and you won't be soliciting the attention of a predator that doesn't take kindly to you trying to take back what's yours.

 

They don't own you. They know they don't own you. You know they don't own you. I don't see anything to gain from writing it down.

[cobra2411]

 I don't see anything to gain from writing it down.

I don't either. I don't regret filing mine, but I've never used it and doubt I ever will. 

 

It was a neat exercise and it did teach me about how they twist words around and manipulate the system. Just do a little research on what a person is in the legal system or look up Capitis Diminutio Maxima... I think they're well past keeping it all hidden. Now they'll just stomp on your throat to keep you silent and to keep all the other chattel in line. 

 

In my opinion it's a sign of the end for them. The system is collapsing under it's own weight and those in the know understand that so the gloves have come off and they're going to use their power now before they lose it. 

[cynicist]

Since it was inspected I put it off in my mind till next year. He moaned and groaned and did my a favor... And I thanked him for his understanding. Had I played the sovereignty angle I could still be sitting in jail for contempt or some other BS charge... 

 

Yeah that's how I see it too. Just do what you need to in order to limit what they can inflict on you. Making a stand in this situation won't actually achieve anything. I admire Adam Kokesh's courage but at times it's hard not to mistake it for insanity when he purposefully draws attention to himself from cops/the legal system. If he had been sent to prison, people would think it was horrible but then what? I think he realized that when he was sitting in a jail cell after recording himself pumping a shotgun and posting it on Youtube. He didn't do anything wrong but that's a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the state.

[...]

. 

[Mishelle]

Thanks so much for your replies, all interesting and worthy each of a reply, when I find some time!

The idea still appeals to me, am seriously considering.

[J-William]

I don't get the point.

 

Why would you want to tell some dangerous psychopaths with guns that claim to be a "government" that you don't respect their authority?

 

I don't go telling local thugs what I think of their street gang, so why would I bother with a bigger more dangerous group of thugs?

[Mishelle]

It's about leadership, and speaking truth to power and living in alignment with my principles.  Why does Stef piss off so many people that his Youtube channel gets dumped?  I respect your pacifism, but that's just not me.  We all die on our chosen paths, I'd rather go out hollering at the madness.  It's not for everyone, I really do believe it takes all kinds and that we can learn from everyone.

[dsayers]

Self-preservation is not the same as pacifism.

 

Would you proclaim yourself sovereign if nobody was claiming ownership over you? If not, then for you to do so would be to legitimize their claim by engaging in behaviors for them. Like if somebody always did the exact opposite of what was expected of them, they wouldn't be free since doing the opposite is still behaving based on that expectation alone.

 

I totally sympathize with you, Mishelle. I was once of the same mind and got a chance to prove it. As a result, a situation that could've just been a VERY uncomfortable inconvenience ended up being a year of hell that robbed me of many things. They turned the heat up because they didn't too much care for me telling them that what they were doing was wrong.

 

Of course I was young and teeming with testosterone and unprocessed trauma. One of the more important things studying philosophy has helped me with is valuing self-preservation over proving a point to an audience that isn't listening and can invalidate the point by rigging the game further. THEY DON'T PLAY BY THEIR OWN RULES. Please do not engage them unnecessarily.

[cobra2411]

In 2007 or so when I filed mine I actually thought the country could be saved by returning to the rule of law and by holding the politicians accountable to their oaths under the constitution. 

 

Yeah, not that naive today...

 

Anyway, mine was focused more on disputing the alleged hidden contracts out there. My idea was to present common or perceived knowledge to them in their own language - as if it was simply a battle of semantics... That's one of the main complaints with the constitutionalists and the sovereignty people is that they've changed the definitions to words so in a legal sense they don't mean what you think they mean.

 

Back to the declaration of sovereignty this again, one of the main differences between Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code is in how contracts can be entered. UCC allows adhesion contracts and I basically disputed all of those alleged hidden contracts like driver's licenses, use of federal reserve notes, filing taxes, etc. It's based on a lot of constitutional law stuff; I'm not sure how it would be affected by my latest understanding of the state... 

 

For example, Brady v US 379 US 742 at 748:(1970) states that "Waivers of [Constitutionally protected] Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."

 

Mudook v Penn. 319 US 105:(1940) states that "No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it."

 

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Al. 373 US 262: (1962) states "if the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage [in] the right with impunity."

 

Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579 states "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

 

So since the traveling is a right, and the state can not by their own rules convert that to a privilege and issue a license with a fee and I can only waive my constitutionally protected rights knowingly and voluntarily, since I did not waive my rights, I dispute there is any hidden contract and if there is, I revoke, cancel and make void my signature on any and all documents, forms, etc that feature a hidden contract or any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. My continued use of those items, such as a drivers license is done so in duress due to the extreme harassment for not having one. Blah, blah, blah... 

 

This all revolves around the idea that if presented properly enough, the state will simply back off and say "well done, you've really done your homework..." In reality, the state loves to find any crack it can and beat you down mercilessly for trying to upset the game.

 

I really enjoy all the study I did on the topic and I believe there is something to be said about believing that you and only you control you, I strongly agree with the others that at this time it's probably best to keep that to yourself...

[RuralRon]

I did this back in '07 also. There's a great deal of info about this online, much is unreliable. Rather than describe some aspect or write an essay of my experience with this, which you may not need or want to know, just ask me whatever you like in a PM & I'll answer any questions you may have. It's not a step you should take without serious research and conviction, and you need to be prepared for the potential consequences.

 

In reply to dsayers, your last paragraph describes a very rational perspective of hindsight. Unfortunately the process by which you arrived at it more often than not must be experienced to fully integrate. I have finally come to the conclusion in the last 6 - 8 months there are safer, more effective tactics & strategies in resisting than such declarations accomplish. However, embarking down that path does feel like a trip to Galt's Gulch initially, and the feeling of freedom is exhilarating. Taking that path is a true test of one's metal.

 

Every human must decide for themselves what constitutes freedom and what price they are willing to pay for it. It may not be feasible to accurately weigh all the trade-offs in such a decision, but it's important to try, and try hard.

 

Take for example the path Stefan has chosen for he & his family. He too has "declared his strong opposition" to the state, and thus has painted a target on his back and that of his family, including his daughter. His courage should not be undervalued. Has he gone far enough or too far? Only he can say. And he believes he's making the right choices for his daughter also, but she is too young to weigh in yet.

 

I for one am very glad he has made the choice to stand, be vocal, be proactive and fight for morality without the certainty of knowing what the future has in store. That's real courage, just like declaring sovereignty. 

 

 

Would you proclaim yourself sovereign if nobody was claiming ownership over you?

 

Can't you see, the government makes that claim by it's very existence? The question is, how will you defend your claim to the contrary? If we truly are our own masters we need to act like it, and declaring it is being consistent with that. I do recognize that under the threat of the government's power people don't have a moral obligation to do so. What a person does in such circumstances cannot be universalized or put in a box of right or wrong.

 

I need to stop. Too long winded as it is.

[dsayers]

Can't you see, the government makes that claim by it's very existence?

 

I do understand that. But I also understand that that's all it is: a claim. As long as I pay my protection money, which is largely calculated automatically at the register, I'm left alone. You and I are having this conversation, I come and go as I please, etc. If you were an alien that landed from another planet and watched me 24/7, you'd never guess that there's this large, unbelievably corrupt parasite claiming ownership over me.

 

I'm afraid you missed the point with my question though. Which was that the act of claiming freedom is a confession of lack of freedom. Since the behavior is only done in response to the claim.

[RuralRon]

I'm afraid you missed the point with my question though. Which was that the act of claiming freedom is a confession of lack of freedom. Since the behavior is only done in response to the claim.

 

Yes, I did miss that, but I'd have to say not necessarily. The truth of the claim isn't in making it, but rather the actions that stem from it. Your point is that such claims are only a response, but if you act 100% as a sovreign then you are, no matter what the government does to you. That may not be a very wise course of action to take, but you would be demonstrating your sovreignty and your integrity; nobody could acuse you of hypocrisy regarding the claim.

 

WRT your hypothetical, I disagree. In order to stay under the state's radar the alien would observe how incongruent your actions are: you pay taxes but talk to your friends about why you shouldn't have to, and you do a great many things you object to because you're affraid. Not so sure the alien would see the cloaked threat to your safety if they're only examining your actions and your words. Larken Rose's talk at the Free Your Mind conference (Aliens & Volcano Gods) springs to mind.

 

According to Benjamin Franklin those that value safety more than freedom deserve neither, but since he was a statist and statists don't actually value freedom (for everyone) his statement is questionable. My response would be how free are you when you're dead? But if you happen to be a leader of a great hoard of followers your death might spark major changes, and that might have been your objective and the statement wouldn't apply.

 

I see much talk here justifying compliance for self preservation, for no obligations under threat. I do get it, but it's still hypocritical behavior and that always bothers me, in myself or anyone else, irrespective of any exceptions that excuse it.

[Sal9000]

I have yet to see five lawsuits where declaring your sovereignity actually worked. Until I see legal documents that it works I am highly sceptical.

[RuralRon]

And you'd be wise to remain so Sal. All bets are off when it comes to the legal system; it's a crap shoot.

 

I fully agree with Cobra on the (lack of) value of this as a defensive tactic. However, as I tried to explain and I believe Mishelle has indicated, this has more to do with personal conviction and statement of who we are and how we choose to live. I no longer believe it has any positive value in our corrupt and unjust legal system.

 

If you're leaning towards doing this I recommend serious research and soul searching before you take this step.