FBI:"sovereign citizen" movement the nation's top domestic terror threat

[Brocke]

A look at the "sovereign citizen" movement

May 15, 2011

Byron Pitts reports on a movement the FBI now considers one of the nation's top domestic terror threats

(CBS News)

This is a story about a group of Americans you've likely never heard of: they're called "sovereign citizens." Many don't pay taxes, carry a driver's license or hold a Social Security card. They have little regard for the police or the courts, and some have become violent.

The FBI lists them among the nation's top domestic terror threats.

By some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 sovereign citizens in the U.S. And with the sluggish economy and mortgage mess, their ranks are growing.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/15/60minutes/main20062666.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesPrimary

[amazon]

The comments to this story are very interesting,
that is,
overwhelmingly in favour of
locking these people up,
or putting them on reservations
with no "rights" or citizenship.

VERY few comments
suggesting we look at the undelying causes
of their discontent.

I counted 1 comment that pointed out that we no longer
have the same number of rights
as we did
10, 20, 50, 100 years ago !

Very disturbing.

[worcesteradam]

one of them wrote

As a white male, with the military, I cannot help but worry, knowing that there are these terrorists running around, with all of their beloved guns (do they fondle them at night?), while I am doing the country's "business."

So hes in the military, fighting terrorists, but nobody else is allowed to have guns

[Kilika]

If a person decides they don't want to be a citizen of any country, where do they go?

For a person to give up their US citizenship, they have to submit all kinds of paperwork and have a country they are going to live in as a citizen there. But I've seen no mention if a person doesn't want to be a citizen of any country at all.

The reality is that there is no real estate that is not under the ownership of some country. If a person wants to be truly sovereign, they can, but they have no place they can legally live. Somebody has to let them live in their own sovereign lands.

[Optimus]

CBS Demonizes Constitutionalists
http://www.infowars.com/cbs-demonizes-constitutionalists/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 16, 2011

In a 60 Minutes hit piece, constitutionalists who believe the federal government has grabbed too much power and has become tyrannical are lumped in with Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son Joseph. Kane and his son, who claimed to be aligned with the sovereign citizen movement, gunned down two Arkansas cops during a traffic stop and were killed by police 90 minutes later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F_pY47hE5U&feature=player_embedded

The CBS video attempts to connect constitutionalists and members of the sovereign citizen movement to Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombing, and supposedly racist militias. It uniformly portrays those who argue the government has violated its constitutional mandate as violent, insane, and possibly racist. It insinuates that if you have a problem with income taxes or are an advocate of states rights under the Tenth Amendment, you are an extremist and domestic terrorist.

[Brocke]

Notice they mention home schooling as if it had turned his son into a killer. Sovereign Citizens are another group in the axis of homegrown terror they want to start hyping since Bin Ladin is "dead". Racist Tea Partyers, crazy conspiracy theorists, Hateful Birthers, dangerous survivalists and weird christian cult members.

[EDIT] ...oh and Tax cheats, don't forget that dangerous group.

[EDIT] and Minute Men.

[Dok]

Notice they mention home schooling as if it had turned his son into a killer. Sovereign Citizens are another group in the axis of homegrown terror they want to start hyping since Bin Ladin is "dead". Racist Tea Partyers, crazy conspiracy theorists, Hateful Birthers, dangerous survivalists and weird christian cult members.

ha, i must be at the top of the list as i do all of that. 

home school: check
Tea Party: check
conspiracy theorist: check
Birther:  check
survivalist:  check
Christian:  check

They will have to add Ron Paul supporter. 

[Freeski]

bump for later - important topic

[CheneysWorstNightmare]

This was also on 60 minutes last night.

Of course, it made the sovereign citizens look like nuts.

[amazon]

If a person decides they don't want to be a citizen of any country, where do they go?

For a person to give up their US citizenship, they have to submit all kinds of paperwork and have a country they are going to live in as a citizen there. But I've seen no mention if a person doesn't want to be a citizen of any country at all.

The reality is that there is no real estate that is not under the ownership of some country. If a person wants to be truly sovereign, they can, but they have no place they can legally live. Somebody has to let them live in their own sovereign lands.

Plus PAY $700 !!!!!!

I discovered this while investigating
the dual citizenship vs becoming a British subject.

Banksters STILL trying to scam money wherever they can !

[Brocke]

If a person decides they don't want to be a citizen of any country, where do they go?

For a person to give up their US citizenship, they have to submit all kinds of paperwork and have a country they are going to live in as a citizen there. But I've seen no mention if a person doesn't want to be a citizen of any country at all.

The reality is that there is no real estate that is not under the ownership of some country. If a person wants to be truly sovereign, they can, but they have no place they can legally live. Somebody has to let them live in their own sovereign lands.

Statelessness
Statelessness is the legal and social concept of a lack of belonging (or a lawfully enforceable claim) to any recognised state. Statelessness is not always the same as lack of citizenship.

De jure statelessness is where there exists no recognised state in respect of which the subject has a legally meritorious basis to claim nationality.

De facto statelessness is where the man, woman or child may have a lawful and meritorious claim but is precluded from asserting it because of practical considerations such as cost, circumstances of civil disorder, or the fear of discrimination or persecution.

Statelessness most commonly affects refugees although not all refugees are stateless, and not all stateless men, women and children may be able to qualify as refugees. Refugee status entails the extra requirements that the refugee is outside their country of nationality (or country of habitual domicile if stateless), and is deserving of asylum based upon a well-founded fear of persecution for categorized reasons which make him/her unwilling or unable to avail the protection of that country.

Micronations
Micronations, sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects, are small, self-proclaimed entities that claim to be independent sovereign states but which are not acknowledged as such by any recognised sovereign state, or by any supranational organization. They should not be confused with microstates, which are recognised independent states of a small size, nor should they be confused with unrecognised states, which may have legitimate claim to sovereign state status.

Motivations for the creation of micronations include theoretical experimentation, political protest, artistic expression, personal entertainment and the conduct of criminal activity. Micronations can also exist in various forms, including in the physical world (on land, at sea and in outer space), online, in the minds of their creators—or some combination of these. Some micronations issue coins, flags, postage stamps, passports, medals, and other items.

A short list of Micronations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations

Aerican Empire
Aeterna Lucina
Aramoana
Atlantium
Austenasia
Avram
Akhzivland
British West Florida
BjornSocialist Republic
Celestia
Conch Republic
Copeman Empire
Coral Sea Islands
Dubeldeka
Elleore
EnenKio
Forvik
Freetown Christiania
Frestonia
Global Country of World Peace
Hajduc(ka Republika Mijata Tomic'a
Hay-on-Wye
Humanity
Hutt River
Republic of Jamtland
Kugelmugel
Ladonia
Lagoan Isles
L'Anse-Saint-Jean
Llanrwst
Kingdom of Lovely
Lundy
Marlborough
Melchizedek
Minerva
Molossia
Morac-Songhrati-Meads
Naminara Republic
Neue Slowenische Kunst
New Utopia
Northern Forest Archipelago
Nova Roma
Other World Kingdom[citation needed]
Perloja
Pešc(enica
Rainbow Creek
Redonda
Rose Island
Saugeais
Sealand
Seborga
Talossa
Užupis
Valtio
Vikesland
Wanstonia
Waveland
Wendland
Westarctica
Whangamomona Republic
Wirtland
Wy

Some contemporary geopolitical entities that wish to be recognised as sovereign states have been hindered by a lack of diplomatic recognition. In the past, similar entities have existed, and there are now entities claiming independence, often with de facto control of their territory, with recognition ranging from almost all other recognised states to no states at all.

There are two traditional doctrines that provide interpretations of when a sovereign state should be recognised as a member of the international community. The "declarative" theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria:

1) a defined territory;
2) a permanent population;
3) a government and
4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

List of states with limited recognition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

Somaliland
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria)
Republic of Abkhazia
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Republic of Kosovo
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
State of Palestine
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Republic of South Ossetia
Armenia
Cyprus
Israel
North Korea
South Korea


How To Start Your Own Country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rvx3t2vo18

[worcesteradam]

Is Dominque Strauss Khan part of this evil movement

[Brocke]

Do you own your house?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BU_PqLN-ls


Allodial title

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud."

True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. In particular, land is said to be "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the Crown; in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare. Some of the Commonwealth realms (particularly Australia) recognize native title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant. Some land in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, known as Udal land, is held in a manner akin to allodial land in that these titles are not subject to the ultimate ownership of the Crown.

In France, while allodial title existed before the French Revolution, it was rare and limited to ecclesiastical properties and property that had fallen out of feudal ownership. After the French Revolution allodial title became the norm in France and other civil law countries that were under Napoleonic legal influences. Interestingly Quebec adopted a form of allodial title when it abolished feudalism in the mid-nineteenth century making the forms of ownership in Upper and Lower Canada remarkably similar in substance.

Property owned under allodial title is referred to as allodial land, allodium, or an allod. In the Domesday Book it is called alod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

[EvadingGrid]

Allodial title versus FEE SIMPLE

Ya been a victim of a confidence trick.

[Kilika]

Yep, familiar with alloidal land concept. And neither Texas nor Nevada operate it as a true alloidal either as I understand it.

The thing is, the way man's law covers the earth, one must actually take possesion of somebody elses land to declare that area "free and neutral" land or even a new country. Palistine anyone? There has to be a process whereby the current law claims are removed, recinded over that given geography, making it literally a no-man's land. No provisions for that exist that I know of because all land is basically state-level privately owned land, and the rest being under international jurisdiction. Not to mention the backlash from the environmental industry trying to "protect" thousands of small islands that have various "native species" so man can't live there kind of rhetoric.

[Geolibertarian]

Yep, familiar with alloidal land concept. And neither Texas nor Nevada operate it as a true alloidal either as I understand it.

Unlike such things as houses, clothing, cars and computers, land is not a product of human labor.
 
And what so many people either fail or refuse to realize is that the overextension of "law-made property" (as Albert Jay Nock put it) invariably and inevitably infringes upon "labour-made property."

The bottom line is: if, in the name of "allodialism," we allow a mere subset of the human population to assert exclusive, unconditional "ownership" of the Earth on which all must live yet which none produced, the unavoidable result is hundreds of millions of people having no right of access to the Earth, and hence no right to life itself (since to "be" is to be -- "somewhere").

To equate such a feudalistic arrangement with "liberty" is no less Orwellian than to equate "war" with "peace" or "freedom" with "slavery."

For more on this, see:

     http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
     http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0

[EvadingGrid]

see above

People are confused between Monopoly Laws and Property Rights.

[goforward]

Wow! So this Restore America Plan, de jure grand jury stuff really hit a sensitive spot
One of the guys behind this Tim Turner
long interview
http://youtu.be/kB36UVnaNFQ

remember this?
http://youtu.be/GMGhezwYWbk

[Freeski]

Wow, at 10:40 on, the question is asked and what a brilliant response! Tough truth!

ULTIMATELY it comes to that, and that's the whole point behind the right to self defense.

[Freeski]

Well the 60 Minutes piece was certainly hardcore propaganda! Wow, how obvious can you be?

[Valerius]

So, I guess bound subordinate lackeys is what we should all strive to be?

[Freeski]

So, I guess bound subordinate lackeys is what we should all strive to be?

Screw the control freaks!

[freedom_commonsense]

People are confused between Monopoly Laws and Property Rights.

The first property right is the right not to be a slave. By definition, if all land is owned, you are always trespassing and therefore cannot survive without someone's permission. I agree with Geolibertarian that concentrated land ownership is similar in effect to the old feudal system. Henry George's single tax aims to prevent concentrated ownership, speculation and similar economic ills.