Thursday, March 08, 2012

What does "Sovereign Citizen" mean?

What does "Sovereign Citizen" mean?

OPEN LETTER TO ABC NEWS PRODUCER DAN LIEBERMAN and ANCHOR DAN HARRIS

By Bob Hurt http://bobhurt.com, Email

Some self-appointed gurus claim the term “sovereign citizen” constitutes an oxymoron (Conjoining contradictory terms).  Actually, it does not. 

“Citizen” means “a member of a political community.”  The term “sovereign citizen” means "A citizen from whom government sovereignty flows."

The term implies that the sovereign citizen yields a degree of his sovereignty to government in order to idealize the balance of liberty with responsibility.  So it means “I am responsibile for proper use of my sovereignty which I have yielded to government, and I can and shall take it back from government employees who abuse it.”

Ralph W. wrote

“A citizen is a man or woman that has granted a limited delegation of power by and though posited in an organic constitution and to access that constitution and bill of rights he/she is a "citizen of Florida" and not a sovereign citizen”.

I responded

“I have written the precise meaning.  Take it or leave it.  The implication of the term “sovereign citizen” boils down to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for abuses of government, not merely operating like one of the sheep citizens submitting to government abuse.  It also implies intelligent, informed courage and not merely a "damn the torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD" mentality.  In the typical implicit meaning, a citizen functions like a subject who may or may not express voice in government, but a Sovereign Citizen expresses that voice through the political process including the polls and any other action needed to make government employees comply with their loyalty oaths and respect the limits on government authority.  A HUGE difference exists between the sheep citizen and the sovereign citizen.”

Government employees must adhere to the strict limits of the constitutions, AND they must enforce the constitutions’ guarantee of the expressed and unexpressed rights of the people.  If they don’t , then they do not obey their oaths to “support the constitution.”  And if they violate those oaths, they become or should become “dog meat” and the citizenry ought to

1.   Stop the abuse, then

2.   Remove the abuser from government by any expedient means.

Our nation’s and state’s founders said it best:

·         In the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776, paragraph 2:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 ·         and in the Florida Constitution of 1838 Article I Section 2:

 “That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient. 

 See our discussion trail below.

 Naturally, discussions like this lead us to the question “What if those in government disagree with your method and take up arms against you?” 

 We see that government disagreement every day in the streets of America, some legitimate and some not.

·         Many people commit crimes and the police/sheriffs/FBI, etc., arrest them. 

·         But many become victims of arrest, beatings, and incarceration simply for exercising their rights. 

·         Many litigants become victims of prosecutorial abuse or judicial abuse, and suffer terrible, lasting damage as a consequence. 

·         Legislatures and Congress have enacted many unconstitutional laws. 

·         Executive branch agents have engaged in public policy pogroms to abuse whole classes of people.  Prior to 1960 many states deprived Black people of their voting rights through abusive poll taxes. 

·         Today, Americans tolerate all kinds of balloting abuse so that their votes don’t count, don’t matter, and have no effect on elections.

What happens?  Well, criminals get punished who deserve it.  And many innocents get abused because they did not effectively stand up for their rights or excise the crime and criminals from government before it became so entrenched and widespread as to resist any excision effort.

That means all the victims of abuse could take lessons from the millions whom the abusers never singled out for abuse.  It also means that those who avoided the abuse ought to “live their religion” and help their fellows.  It takes political and legal activism by a lot of intelligent, informed people to stop the abuse by rogues in government.

Guess what?  It is what it is.  Abuse exists regardless of who should prevent it or why it happens.  And you either hunker down and suffer it like a citizen, or you stand up and do something to stop it like a sovereign citizen.

It’s just a choice.  One carries little personal risk, and the other exposes one to monumental personal risk.

The news media will try to paint as criminals those who stand up and do something effective to stop abuse and crimes by government employees.  I encourage people to stand up and take effective administrative, legal, and political action, and to develop the tools and physical power to make their voices heard and heeded by government employees, so as to excise the abuse and the abuser from government.  THAT kind of person is a “sovereign citizen.”

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email  bh   f       t • 
Blogs: 
1 2 3 • 
Law: 
E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  •  
727 669 5511

 

 

[2:18:09 PM] Bob Hurt: Look at this OpEdNews array of videos of Bob Hurt and Tampa Bay area people promoting honesty in government.

 http://www.opednews.com/Diary/ABC-News-and-FBI-considers-by-Steven-G-Erickson-120205-813.html

 See the ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and ABC News Nightline tonight (Thursday, 8 March 2012) about Sovereign Citizens.  You might see me in their video.  Then you compare what you see on ABC with the videos at the above link.  You can determine for yourself whether ABC presented the story accurately.

 [2:25:38 PM] Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd: Really busy right now but "sovereign citizen" is a oximoron combination of words.  Will check later.

 [3:57:52 PM] Bob Hurt: Actually, it is not an oxymoron.  It means "A citizen from whom sovereignty flows." It implies that the citizen yields a degree of his sovereignty to government in order to idealize the balance of liberty with responsibility.  So it means I am responsibility for proper use of my sovereignty which I have yielded to government, and I can take it back from government employees who abuse it.

 [3:59:49 PM] Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd:  A citizen is a man or woman that has granted a limited delegation of power by and though posited in an organic constitution and to access that constitution and bill of rights he/she is a "citizen of Florida" and not a sovereign citizen.

 [4:11:43 PM | Edited 4:11:59 PM] Bob Hurt: Ralph, I have written the precise meaning.  Take it or leave it.  The implication of the term sovereign citizen boils down to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for aubses of government, not merely operating like one of the sheep submitting to government abuse.  It also implies intelligent, informed courage and not merely a "damn the torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD" mentality.  In the typical implicit meaning, a citizen is a subject who may or may not express voice in govenrment, but a Sovereign Citizen expresses that voice through the political process including the polls and any other action needed to make government employees comply with their loyalty oaths.  A HUGE difference exists between the sheep citizen and the sovereign citizen.

 [4:15:06 PM] Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd: I reject ipse dixit pontifications - so there we are.  Proceed as you want as I find no definitions in support of "sovereign citizen"

 [4:17:06 PM] Bob Hurt: You propound such pontifications when you blithely assert sovereign citizen is an oxymoron.

 [4:18:25 PM] Bob Hurt: It is a term of art to distinguish the activist citizen who holds government accountble, even to the point of using physical force if necessary, from one of the sheep citizens who barely even votes.

 [4:20:29 PM] Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd: There citizens of Florida, citizens of the several States, citizens of the United States of America and American citizens. - all good and have a meaning.  There are citizens of the United States that want the same rights as white citizens, etc. as defined in 42 USC §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988 and 14 Stat. 27 and R.S. 1878 Title XXIV.

[4:50:38 PM] Bob Hurt: You have written the facts, Ralph.  But tonight ABC will do segments on Sovereign Citizens, so get with the program and understand the language.  They want to make Sovereign Citizens look like wackos, and some probably are, but I am not, and I don't consider myself part of a rebellious group, even though I fully endorse "Whoever's closest to the snake, grab a stick and hit it."  THAT's what "sovereign citizen" is all about.  Unfortunately, yoiu can always whack the wrong snake, not all have fangs, etc.

[4:52:02 PM] Bob Hurt: And there's the danger.  We need judges to sort out the bullshitter snake oil salesmen from the honest businessman.  We cannot do their job without all the facts.  There's the danger for sovereign citizens.  Government will target and exterminate them after the press does its job of making them look like idiots.  That's why I try to become the voice of reason to them.  LOOK AT THE VIDEOS, and SEE THE SHOW TONIGHT.

 

1 comment:

Jack Dundee said...

Is there any truth to the Act of 1871 or the 14th Amendment making our absolute and unalienable rights relative rights and privileges? I believe the 14th Amendment today should be repealed for other reasons but if that's true it's one of the greatest American lies and make Lincoln even more of a tyrant then he was.

Print Friendly and PDF