I've been watching YouTube videos with Sovereign Citizens lately, and they're hilarious.

For those who don't know, Sovereign Citizens (SovCits) are anti-government extremists who believe that laws don't apply to them.

They don't get driver's licences, don't register or insure their cars, and when pulled over for a traffic stop refuse to give their name etc.

They always end up in jail.

Some of them seem to have serious mental health problems, but others are just attention whores who like to go looking for a fight.

Here are a few of the precious little snowflakes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkFbLW7eMwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hrb0segFoI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL5BJkJQOA8

Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least.

So - what about that ceding of sovereignty here?  That is a big issue and is never openly discussed around the dreaded round table with all 'stakeholders' given a fair chance and equal footing, just like every other important issue - but is left instead to a set of pat phrases to be bandied about at whim by 'activists'.

True government comes from a mandate of the masses, willingly given and fully informed! We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!

You see the difference?  'We' choose to be rules-bound - these Sovereign Citoyennes refuse to be....... s'all about.............. (rolling thunder for dividie).................. Personal Sovereignty.... innit?

Is this one an attention-whore or an escaped mental patient?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vkJtdLXTZA&t=524s

It was nice when the 3rd video guy called out politely 'are we free to go now?'

Point is this:-  Is being shoe-horned into acceptance of a culture/society etc from birth an absolute right of the culture/government of the day - or should only adults be permitted to vote with their feet one way or the other and either become willingly compliant with these things, or simply say NO to them?  Should children be forced to accept being part of all of those things or not?

As I said - they have a point - point is - by what right do they swim in the same sea of fish as those who accept 'civic responsibility' as being part of the specified society?  Can they go down and eat Macca's, drive the roads etc, even drive an uninspected and unsafe vehicle if they so choose, without 'paying their dues' to the very culture/society that creates these things and expects minimum standards in safety of and behaviour towards others?  Or are they on their own entirely?

I can see some very clear parallels here with modern Australia... YOU?

Can a person choose or not to be a sovereign citizen of the nation/culture without being forced to not accept any or all parts of that nation/culture*?  Or should they be sent on to their own 'nation state' where they can 'do things their way' without let AND without interfering with the activities of others?  (Enter Stage Left - Anarchic Park - an adjunct of Aborassic Park and The Free Second State of Abestine) ......

"Let's just all agree that Harriet has the RIGHT to drive a car..."

"Even if she is unlicenced, and even if she doesn't know how to drive one?"

"Yes - it could be symbolic of her struggle against oppression and being forced to conform!"

"More like a struggle with her own sanity....."

A sovereign has the right to walk over other people on the footpath. If they fail to do so, their sovereignty is terminated.

chimera wrote on Jun 4^th, 2024 at 8:19am:

A sovereign has the right to walk over other people on the footpath. If they fail to do so, their sovereignty is terminated.

"A moment, Your Majesty - I'll have the peasants form a human log bridge for you over this muddy ditch..... now - face down, you lot - you can't look on the sovereign too closely .... allow me to try it first to ensure there is no mud getting through, Your Majesty..."

'Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown'. Putin's guard has 340,000 troops and he keeps his crown under his pillow.

The USA is heading towards anarchy as it becomes ungovernable as lawmakers and MAGA mobs foment chaos and dissent.

The manufacture of consent has been displaced by the manufacture of dissent.

It is heading towards the chaos of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Gaza. Muhammad makes them a bit worse.

chimera wrote on Jun 4^th, 2024 at 9:50am:

It is heading towards the chaos of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Gaza. Muhammad makes them a bit worse.

If America reached the chaos of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Gaza that would be an improvement on its present state.

Who is then more unjust than he who utters a lie against Allah and (he who) gives the lie to the truth when it comes to him; is there not in hell an abode for the unbelievers?  And on the day of resurrection you shall see those who lied against Allah; their faces shall be blackened.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 4^th, 2024 at 9:26am:

The USA is heading towards anarchy as it becomes ungovernable as lawmakers and MAGA mobs foment chaos and dissent. The manufacture of consent has been displaced by the manufacture of dissent.

You're learning - slow still.. but learning....

There is something deeply satisfying watching people like this getting arrested and squealing like a pig.

Obey the law.  If it's good enough to demand of minorities then these entitled white folk should do the same.

If not, they get the same.

THe local movement here is quite sad.

The Corporation of Australia under maritime law means they don't have to be bound by our laws.

Hilarious.

But on a serious note, they waste so much resources from law enforcement to the courts, it's a disgrace.

They've never once had a win, other than begging for money for their legal defence funds or grifting people trying to teach them how to beat the system.

Cookers gonna cook.

Their creativity must require effort.
'Travelling is not driving'.
'Driving is only when you do deliveries'.
The cops seem to enjoy the endless repetition of silliness.
(cof cof)..

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 4:11pm:

There is something deeply satisfying watching people like this getting arrested and squealing like a pig.

Indeed, it is.

When I first discovered the videos, I watched about 10 of them in a row.

In all my life, I've never seen such idiots.

And all for nothing - they achieve absolutely nothing, except ruining their own lives.

Hil.  Arious.

chimera wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

Their creativity must require effort. 'Travelling is not driving'. 'Driving is only when you do deliveries'. The cops seem to enjoy the endless repetition of silliness. (cof cof)..

It does, but if they just put that effort into something, real, they'd be far better for it.

But less entertaining.

I watched the first 3 clips and was astonished at the patience of that Aussie cop. I'd like to say something hopeful about Aussie cops being generally nicer than US cops but we've some right arseholes here.

Still, the contrast was dramatic.

And while we're on the subject, anyone remember this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeihcfYft9w&ab_channel=RussellFurman

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 4:11pm:

If it's good enough to demand of minorities then these entitled white folk should do the same.

Did you not watch the first video? It seems that black person was just too uppity to be a minority POC.

Setanta wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 10:03pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jun 6th, 2024 at 4:11pm: If it's good enough to demand of minorities then these entitled white folk should do the same. Did you not watch the first video? It seems that black person was just too uppity to be a minority POC.

I'll have to look again.

I've only ever seen white folk go down the cooker path to this extreme.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2024 at 6:36pm:

Is this one an attention-whore or an escaped mental patient? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vkJtdLXTZA&t=524s

Honestly can't believe these sort of idiots.

This one has a happy ending:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTmYztJkOcg

It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:

It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person.

It was the best outcome possible.

Everyone wins.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins.

The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. I have watched footage of a guy having the experience of police training their firearms on him. And when he went to turn towards the officer, the officer shot him.

Police in the USA are trigger happy. I realise that they have to do that in some areas. But this particular video does not convince me of the need to shoot the suspect dead.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2024 at 6:19pm:

Well - they do have a point -

Any "point" made by a delusional individual freedom ideologue  (aka a "sovereign citizen") is based on  -  a delusion re individual sovereignty, so should be approached with extreme caution.   


Quote:

as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least.

Er - sovereignty of government is not subject to voluntary acceptance by individual citizens of the country.


Quote:

So - what about that ceding of sovereignty here?  That is a big issue and is never openly discussed around the dreaded round table with all 'stakeholders' given a fair chance and equal footing, just like every other important issue - but is left instead to a set of pat phrases to be bandied about at whim by 'activists'.

Your error: black activists aren't claiming to be 'sovereign citizens' ( the topic of this thread), they are claiming sovereignty for the 'black nation' (sic).   


Quote:

True government comes from a mandate of the masses,

"True government" can only exist via rule of law, to avoid anarchy. 


Quote:

...willingly given and fully informed!

Get back to us when you can show an electorate which is "fully informed" .....


Quote:

You see the difference?  'We' choose to be rules-bound - these Sovereign Citoyennes refuse to be....... s'all about.............. (rolling thunder for dividie).................. Personal Sovereignty.... innit?

Refuted above.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 1:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him.

Yep.

And he died.

A great outcome for everyone.

Could not have ended any better.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 7:01pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. Yep. And he died. A great outcome for everyone. Could not have ended any better.

I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much.

I'm curious.

Setanta wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 7:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. Yep. And he died. A great outcome for everyone. Could not have ended any better. I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much. I'm curious.

One less oxygen thief.

He decided to reach for his gun, and he paid the price.

No sympathy for homicidal maniacs from me.

You?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 8:14pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. Yep. And he died. A great outcome for everyone. Could not have ended any better. I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much. I'm curious. One less oxygen thief. He decided to reach for his gun, and he paid the price. No sympathy for homicidal maniacs from me. You?

As I said, I can't watch the video, I'll have to take your word on pulling a gun. So mentally handicapped people that reach for a weapon should be shot and you will celebrate it? I thought you were against the DP.

Setanta wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 8:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 8:14pm: Setanta wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. Yep. And he died. A great outcome for everyone. Could not have ended any better. I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much. I'm curious. One less oxygen thief. He decided to reach for his gun, and he paid the price. No sympathy for homicidal maniacs from me. You? As I said, I can't watch the video, I'll have to take your word on pulling a gun. So mentally handicapped people that reach for a weapon should be shot and you will celebrate it? I thought you were against the DP.

You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty.

They are two completely different things.

Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:11am:

You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out.

Good point; but the topic is sovereign citizens, not criminal low-life or tragic retards driven by their reptilian brains whom the world is better off without.

Whereas Graps praises 'high class' sovereign citizens who merely have contempt for rule of law...which is why he didn't attempt to  refute my post.

And of course apart from low life crims and retards, there are people who are oppressed by vicious mainstream neoliberal economic systems and poltical orthodoxies,  and are forced onto welfare dependency.

Hence a complex situation re law enforcement, especially given some cops are no doubt wanna be Genghis Khan 'tough on crime' thugs, and notably in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

the topic is sovereign citizens, not criminal low-life or tragic retards .. .. in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.

Then sovereign citizens don't have guns and do have guns.
And sovereign citizens are a minority and are every person.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:34am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 11:25am: the topic is sovereign citizens, not criminal low-life or tragic retards .. .. in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.    Then sovereign citizens don't have guns and do have guns. And sovereign citizens are a minority and are every person.

A confused narrative to be expected from a delusional 'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.

Fortunately , PM John Howard wasn't a 'sovereign citizen' and he saved Oz from the gun-death chaos in the US, even though crims are just as prevalent in Oz.    

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

in the US where every citizen is "sovereign"

'A confused narrative to be expected from a delusional'.

'every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.' 
So they are sovereign by obeying the US Constitutional government.....?

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:20pm:

So they are sovereign by obeying the US Constitutional government.....?

The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.

Result: the greatest gun-death violence of any 1st world country.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

PM John Howard wasn't a 'sovereign citizen' and he saved Oz from the gun-death chaos in the US

Then all gun owners in Oz with a gun licence are sovereign citizens?  People on the king's highway with a driver's licence are sovereign?  Gun owners with cars need shooting by cops?

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 11:57am: PM John Howard wasn't a 'sovereign citizen' and he saved Oz from the gun-death chaos in the US Then all gun owners in Oz with a gun licence are sovereign citizens?

No, they have a licence with conditions issued by sovereign government.

Do try to keep up.



Quote:

People on the king's highway with a driver's licence are sovereign?  Gun owners with cars need shooting by cops?

See how the delusional 'sovereign citizen's' mind works - totally confusing himself with contradictory nonsense which he somehow thinks is logic.   

Setanta wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 7:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 7:01pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 1:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 9:36pm: It was a tragic ending. Police might as well say that they were conducting a premeditated execution of the person. It was the best outcome possible. Everyone wins. The allegation made was that the guy had a gun holstered. The man allegedly went for the gun. The police shot him. Yep. And he died. A great outcome for everyone. Could not have ended any better. I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much. I'm curious.

You should be able to access Youtube even without a Youtube account. But, if Youtube requires an age range, I can understand.

I agree. The death of a mentally handicapped person should not be met with glee.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:11am:

You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out.

He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:11am: You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out. He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work.

It's a bit silly to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen when a cop
is pointing a loaded gun at your head.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment. Fortunately , PM John Howard wasn't a 'sovereign citizen' and he saved Oz from the gun-death chaos in the US, even though crims are just as prevalent in Oz.

'they have a licence with conditions issued by sovereign government.'

You say US citizens are sovereign by the 2nd Amendment of the government. Oz government is sovereign and gives gun licences. So sovereign citizens depend on sovereign government to not depend on government. Then an Oz car licence from the government creates sovereign citizens.
John Howard was against guns so he wasn't sovereign. Guns are for sovereign citizens with government licences or US government Amendment.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:53pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:11am: You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out. He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work. It's a bit silly to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen when a cop is pointing a loaded gun at your head.

He is allowed to claim that he is a Sovereign Citizen. The police is allowed to point a gun at the alleged perp if the perp is acting in a way that he threatens the life of the police officer.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 3:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:53pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:11am: You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out. He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work. It's a bit silly to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen when a cop is pointing a loaded gun at your head. He is allowed to claim that he is a Sovereign Citizen. The police is allowed to point a gun at the alleged perp if the perp is acting in a way that he threatens the life of the police officer.

I couldn't tell from the video if he was reaching for a gun.
I did see a gun on the floor of the car.
The important footage of the video was all cut out.
I will assume that the coroner will investigate it thoroughly.

The calm conversation and the sudden switch to shouting as he resisted indicates something.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:53pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:11am: You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out. He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work. It's a bit silly to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen when a cop is pointing a loaded gun at your head.

It's a bit silly insane to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen.

Full stop.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:39pm:

The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment [gun rights]- aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.

The right to free speech then aids sovereign citizen ideologues? It  gives freedom from paying tax?

Little boy decides to run away from home and packs his bag. He says to Mum 'aren't you going to drive me?'

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 3:54pm:

The calm conversation and the sudden switch to shouting as he resisted indicates something.

I want to see an uncensored video of the circumstance. If the alleged perp was holding a firearm of some sort, he was likely justified in getting shot.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 5:11pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:53pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 2:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 7:11am: You're confusing self-defence with the death penalty. They are two completely different things. Hard to believe this needs to be pointed out. He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work. It's a bit silly to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen when a cop is pointing a loaded gun at your head. It's a bit silly insane to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen. Full stop.

It is irrelevant for what he claims. It is only relevant if he held up a pistol.

8 shots into his vehicle might be excessive. Or it might well have been necessary.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:54pm:

TGD: 'they have a licence with conditions issued by sovereign government.' You say US citizens are sovereign by the 2nd Amendment of the government.

Comprehension diffulties (or low IQ)?

I said sovereignty is exercized by government, not indivduals.

You are making the classic fallacy of composition, confusing the 'sovereingty' of each individual in a nation, with  all the individuals in a nation who are represented by the sovereign government.

Please rewrite your garbled nonsense, highlighted above.


Quote:

Oz government is sovereign and gives gun licences.

Correct.


Quote:

So sovereign citizens depend on sovereign government to not depend on government.

Once again I have shown above (ie fallacy of composition) why you write such garbled nonsense. 

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 5:42pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 12:39pm: The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment [gun rights]- aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues. The right to free speech then aids sovereign citizen ideologues? It  gives freedom from paying tax? Little boy decides to run away from home and packs his bag. He says to Mum 'aren't you going to drive me?'

Note all the silly questions from a 'sovereign citizen'.....

1. Citizens  (not sovereign)  are subject to laws issued by the sovereign government,  including laws re free speech.

2. Citizens (not sovereign) are subject to taxation laws.

And if you want an international rules-based system,  then individual nations cannot be sovereign in the field of international law.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.

tgd: '1. Citizens  (not sovereign)  are subject to laws issued by the sovereign government,  including laws re free speech'.

You say citizens are sovereign via the government constitution and so are not sovereign by the government.

"We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!  We don't need no Voices in our heads telling us what to do!!”

dividie just doesn't understand responsible anarchy....

https://y.yarn.co/5e4e4bcf-6be6-4a0a-952f-add699987bb9_text.gif

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 4:03pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 11:57am: 'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.   tgd: '1. Citizens  (not sovereign)  are subject to laws issued by the sovereign government,  including laws re free speech'. You say citizens are sovereign via the government constitution and so are not sovereign by the government.

No I don't; what we can see is useful idiots like you reveal the idiocy (and illegality) of the sovereign citizen  delusion.  (Note the singular, which drives home the point as already noted, but which went straight over your head).

But not over head of this Tasmanian independent MP who was invited to a 'sovereign citizens' meeting:

(microsoft news)

Tasmanian MP Craig Garland speaks at 'sovereign citizens' event, but says he's 'not a subscriber to any alternative reality'

Tasmanian independent MP Craig Garland spoke at an event on the weekend that featured multiple 'sovereign citizens' — one of whom plans to create a parallel society — but says he had "no idea" who most of them were.

Mr Garland said he will accept speaking invitations "anywhere, anytime", and that the event was attended by many of his supporters.

The event, in the north-west Tasmanian town of Ulverstone, was called 'Unity in Community', similar to the main slogan of the group 'My Place Australia', which is "putting the unity back in community", and aims to set up a "self-governing" association outside of Australian law.

But event organiser Shayne 'Cush' Allison said he came up with the event name himself, and it was "just a coincidence" that it was shared with My Place.
My Place's facilitator, Darren Bergwerf, attended and spoke at the weekend event.

Other speakers included a man who failed to have his Devonport council rates dismissed in court on constitutional grounds, and a speaker who argues the Australian Constitution is invalid and citizens have given "no implied consent".

Sovereign citizens believe Australian laws and institutions are not valid, and subscribe to the conspiracy that a global "cabal" is plotting to remove ordinary citizen's freedoms, but Mr Allison disputed the term "sovereign citizens".

The rhetoric of sovereign citizens has been routinely rejected by Australian courts and described by judges as "gibberish", "incomprehensible" and vexatious, and cases have resulted in financial penalties and potential loss of assets.

Mr Garland said he attended the event on Saturday afternoon, briefly listened to a speech, then gave his own talk on his "political journey" to about 100 attendees.

"I can't comment on who the other speakers were, I just looked around the room and there were quite a few people there who voted for me," he said.

"There were a lot of familiar faces, and there wasn't any radical element there that I could see that much.

"I'll attend anywhere, anytime I'm asked to talk."

Mr Garland said that 'sovereign citizen' concepts weren't raised with him, but there were discussions about "food security".

He said he did not share sovereign citizen views.

"I'm not a subscriber to any alternative reality," Mr Garland said.

When asked if his attendance could give the other speakers an increased audience, and help to legitimise their views, Mr Garland said "we live in a democracy with freedom of speech"**.

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

**Yes, even  blind neanderthal fools  like chimera who reject the possibility of an international rules based system are free to spout "gibberish" - as noted by judges in Australian courts who routinely come face to face with these 'sovereign citizen' fools.



 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

.. in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.

tdg 'No I don't'.
These words aren't posted in Ozpol. There's no US. tgd is a typo.

Mr Garland's case is interesting:

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

iow, he wants nature to be left as is, with no fish farms or wind farms which might impede his fishing catch.

But he is intelligent enough not to take the delusional 'sovereign  citizen' route, trying to fight in the courts, and is now enjoying a highly paid job as an MP.

The conflict betweeen private (solo)  and commercial fishing  will need to be sorted in the relevant courts.

And the conflict over wind farm placement will need to be sorted by government ( plus courts if necessary in individual cases).

I understand electricity can be transmitted by high voltage DC lines over thousands of kms  with low energy losses,  and then reconverted to AC closer to the point of consumption.

If that's the case, Oz should build all the PV and wind farms it needs, in its vast central deserts, and lay the transmission cables underground. We have the equipment and know how to do it, and the currency-issuing government's Treasury ( the Oz treasury)  can fund it without the government resorting to taxes and/or borrowing to pay for it. 

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment. 

Not at all - in our form of democracy, as opposed to some 'democracies' - our people are sovereign and possess the right to disempower government when it is wrong.

However, to be a 'sovereign citizen' in the context that these people do, one is saying that he/she is refusing to abide by the rules commonly accepted by the whole - while still demanding the right to accept all the benefits of the society in which that person(s) swims (swim) like a fish.

This, of course - has a direct link with those currently doing the rounds who are claiming 'sovereignty' to some past empire while still expecting to receive full benefits of this nation... it follows directly from such a stance that those individuals are not citizens of this state and thus cannot take advantage of the benefits of being citizens of this state, such as voting, sustenance, or even residence.

With privileges come responsibilities - that is the nub of the matter.

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 11:57am: .. in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.    tdg 'No I don't'. These words aren't posted in Ozpol. There's no US. tgd is a typo.

Hint for low IQ chimera: why do you suppose the word sovereign was enclosed in commas?

So I have to spell it out for you, to allow for your low IQ:

...every citizen is supposedly "sovereign" - an oxymoron,  indeed 'gibberish" as noted by the unfortunate Oz court judges who have to deal with blind 'sovereign citizen' ideologues like chimera.

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.'
'The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.'

What has the guns got to do with their claim?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 5:43pm:

Not at all - in our form of democracy, as opposed to some 'democracies' - our people are sovereign and possess the right to disempower government when it is wrong.

Your error - a variation of chimera's idiocy: "our people' are a highly variegated body of individual opinions - individuals who get to vote, to determine WHICH  opinions will be made law ( aka sovereign law). 


Quote:

However, to be a 'sovereign citizen' in the context that these people do, one is saying that he/she is refusing to abide by the rules commonly accepted by the whole - while still demanding the right to accept all the benefits of the society in which that person(s) swims (swim) like a fish.

Correct, except that law is necessarily enforced, not merely voluntarily accepted. 


Quote:

This, of course - has a direct link with those currently doing the rounds who are claiming 'sovereignty' to some past empire while still expecting to receive full benefits of this nation... it follows directly from such a stance that those individuals are not citizens of this state and thus cannot take advantage of the benefits of being citizens of this state, such as voting, sustenance, or even residence.

Correct, though black activists appeal to the concept of dual sovereignty - which amounts to dividing the nation via two sets of laws. 


Quote:

With privileges come responsibilities - that is the nub of the matter.

Agreed.....(biting my tongue....including responsibility of the sovereign government -  oh... never mind. )

As sovereign people we offer limited acceptance of the right of government to do things on our behalf... but whenever there is a chain of abuses and impositions and exclusions - it is the right... it is the duty... of the people to remove such government, by any means necessary.

What we - the people as sovereign - do not possess is unlimited right to do as we wish, but are, instead, bound by the rules of civilised behaviour.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:39pm:

The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues. Result: the greatest gun-death violence of any 1st world country.

You say sovereign citizens are aided by the constitution. Guns are a result and sovereign citizens have the greatest violence.
Or no you didn't say it.  tgd is not tgd. sjr balfn kdn lewyqpo
batd;ag

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

As sovereign people we offer limited acceptance of the right of government to do things on our behalf..

Moving you further in the direction of chimera's idiocy - "gibbersih" according to judges in Oz courts of law:

"As sovereign people" (your words)..... of whom each has his own opinion on what the law should be.

Restating your same argument in different words won't save you.

"We offer limited acceptance, etc.": no "we" don't, we fight in fraudulent elections (and shoot one-another in many countries) to try to get our own idea of law up, while the rich laugh all the way to the bank.   


Quote:

but whenever there is a chain of abuses and impositions and exclusions - it is the right... it is the duty... of the people to remove such government, by any means necessary.

Same old error : "the people" -  who are divided by fraudulent flat-earth economics which keeps  the rich laughing all the way to the bank.   


Quote:

What we - the people as sovereign - do not possess is unlimited right to do as we wish, but are, instead, bound by the rules of civilised behaviour.

You misunderstand the meaning of "the people are sovereign" , which means the people who are governed by their sovereign government.

Individuals can't make laws, governments can. 

You have made no argument.  We, the people, will decide....

George Washington gave people guns which made them sovereign citizens. George was slightly insane and was greatly divided. He didn't say that.

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

George Washington gave people guns which made them sovereign citizens. George was slightly insane and was greatly divided. He didn't say that.

I have a big textbook in the second bedroom, awaiting to be read. I will try and see if your claims have any merit.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:43pm:

You have made no argument.

The individual doesn't make law, the individuals chosen to fill government positions in the legislature and courts make law. There is no such thing as a 'sovereign individual/citizen', sovereignty resides with government.


Quote:

We, the people, will decide....

Showing why "democracy is the worst form of government"; you simply can't refute any of the points made, and resort to your asinine comment above ("made no argument") - and you think you deserve a 'right' to vote....

Fact is 50%+1 of the people (not "we the people")  will decide in a 'democratic' election which laws are legislated.   The losers will have to wait until they can  try again at the next election, by which time the elected governement will have shown itself to be incompetent.

Modi (as did Obama a decade before)  actually had total control of Congress at the start of their reigns, but they failed to deliver for their supporters, hence lost support at the next election.  Repeat and rinse endlessly, politicians love it, and you blindly blame the government rather than the system which prevents governments from eliminating unemployment, improving public services, and ensuring housing for all. Sunak will get his just deserts soon, and the French are forced to choose the fool Macron again. 

Losers.

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:51pm:

George Washington gave people guns which made them sovereign citizens. George was slightly insane and was greatly divided. He didn't say that.

Wrong (leaving aside your idiocy). 

Washington was the first president of the sovereign US government. At that time most Americans had guns which were necessary to  defend the new self-proclaimed government of the USA from British imperialists, and for citizens to defend themselves against 'savages' in a frontier society, without police protection. 

Later

"The Second Amendment was originally introduced in 1791 by President James Madison. It was meant to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government".  (and an overseas tyranny eg Britain).   

Apparently in 1876,   SCOTUS actually ruled that only people who were attached to "militias" had "the right to bear arms" (another story in the long saga of the 2nd amendment in US history)...so much for 'sovereign citizens'. 

https://mblawyers.com.au/history-second-amendment/#:~:text=The%20Second%20Amendment%20was%20originally,against%20a%20tyrannical%20federal%20government.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:39pm:

The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.

tgd :'SCOTUS actually ruled that only people who were attached to "militias" had the right to bear arms ...so much for 'sovereign citizens'.

Where does any sovereign citizen claim the ideology through the 2nd Amend? Now you contradict your first statement.

However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual.  No sanity, just repetition.

chimera wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 11:56am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2024 at 12:39pm: The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues. tgd :'SCOTUS actually ruled that only people who were attached to "militias" had the right to bear arms ...so much for 'sovereign citizens'. Where does any sovereign citizen claim the ideology through the 2nd Amend? Now you contradict your first statement.

All the current pro-gun, delusional 'sovereign citizen' ideologues in the US claim it, do try to keep up; they even regard the sovereign US government as their enemy.

The original US constitution (see the preamble)  was created by "We the Citizens"  to "form a more perfect union" (of the then 13 states), and to "ensure the common welfare..."

Now THERE's a contradiction: the 2nd amendment which was later added to the constitution,  has resulted in the highest rate of gun deaths in any 1st world nation.


Quote:

However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual.  No sanity, just repetition.

Show us some  '"nonsense repeated by the Chinese government", (for whatever reason). 

So crossing out the comment that you contradict yourself proves you don't contradict?

'All the current pro-gun, delusional 'sovereign citizen' ideologues in the US claim it'.
Where? You feel that saying anything becomes fact because you say it?  That's seriously insane.

chimera wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:28pm:

So crossing out the comment that you contradict yourself proves you don't contradict? 'All the current pro-gun, delusional 'sovereign citizen' ideologues in the US claim it'. Where? You feel that saying anything becomes fact because you say it?  That's seriously insane.

https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/how-does-armed-people-secure-free-state#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20keep%20and,as%20crime%20and%20civil%20unrest.

In the United States, our constitutional system is premised on the theory (sic)  that, in a truly free society, ultimate power lies with the people and not with the government. But should the government forget this basic principle, the people maintain the practical power that comes with being armed for their own defense.

Madness, resulting from delusional  'individual freedom"/sovereign citizen ideology; I already explained to graps the "the people" (sic)  are self-interested sh*ts who need to submit to government and rule of law,  to avoid chaos. 

People under the constitution by definiton are not sovereign citizens. Where do sovereign citizens claim their right due to the 2nd Amend? Why do you contradict youself and say the 2nd Amend doesn't give that right?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2024 at 6:19pm:

Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least......

Actually it can't. The Australian Constitution was written at a time the American Civil war was within the living memory of those involved in its writing and the preamble contains the words "...one Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth..."  to make perfectly clear that once a colony joined it was permanent with no legal option to leave.  This was probably one reason new Zealand opted to remain apart.

As for these 'sovereign citizens' the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want. Total separation from political and civil involvement. Of course this means that as they are not citizens they cannot access our welfare, education or healthcare services, have no call on our police and emergency services, cannot drive on our roads etc....they can be non citizens and enjoy all the perks that comes with it ;D 

Thegreatdivide says she's against sov cits but has the same mind-bending word twists. And they both seem to repeat nonsense endlessly to make it factual.  She's invented a new sov cit theory about gun rights, which makes me suspicious.  Mao said power comes from guns, 1927.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 1:11pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 3rd, 2024 at 6:19pm: Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least...... Actually it can't. The Australian Constitution was written at a time the American Civil war was within the living memory of those involved in its writing and the preamble contains the words "...one Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth..."  to make perfectly clear that once a colony joined it was permanent with no legal option to leave.  This was probably one reason new Zealand opted to remain apart. As for these 'sovereign citizens' the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want. Total separation from political and civil involvement. Of course this means that as they are not citizens they cannot access our welfare, education or healthcare services, have no call on our police and emergency services, cannot drive on our roads etc....they can be non citizens and enjoy all the perks that comes with it ;D

Good post.....but  poor old graps  will likely be content to say "you have made no argument", and disappear back into his sovereign citizen, 'voluntary agreement'  fantasy. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:22pm:

The original US constitution (see the preamble)  was created by "We the Citizens" .

That's sovereignty. When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty? The government needs to be created anew by citizens. (can you work out the difference between them and 'sovereign citizens'?)

chimera : 'However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:22pm:

Show us some  '"nonsense repeated by the Chinese government", (for whatever reason).

Its fishermen went to sea and own it as far as Borneo. China owns it. China owns it.

'The dissolution of Parliament took place on Thursday 30 May 2024. All business in the House of Commons and House of Lords has come to an end. There are currently no MPs and every seat in the Commons is vacant until after the general election on 4 July 2024.'

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:22pm: The original US constitution (see the preamble)  was created by "We the Citizens" . That's sovereignty. When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty? The government needs to be created anew by citizens. (can you work out the difference between them and 'sovereign citizens'?) chimera : 'However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual.  thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:22pm: Show us some  '"nonsense repeated by the Chinese government", (for whatever reason).  Its fishermen went to sea and own it as far as Borneo. China owns it. China owns it.

Our city is sacked. May you know it! May you know it!”
Ugarit circa 1200BC.

That's what happens when sovereign fishermen with guns draw maps of democracy.

chimera wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 1:42pm:

Thegreatdivide says she's against sov cits but has the same mind-bending word twists. And they both seem to repeat nonsense endlessly to make it factual.  .

'Sovereign citizens' don't regard the concept as "mind bending",  though they are equally as delusional as you re the sovereignty of governments.


Quote:

She's invented a new sov cit theory about gun rights, which makes me suspicious.  Mao said power comes from guns, 1927

Your low IQ confirmed: in 1927, Mao was working to  establish government for the prosperity of the Chinese nation which at the time was ravaged by the absolute poverty of over 90% of the population - not to maintain the prosperity of neanderthal, self-interested "freedom or death" individuals who refuse to submit to rule of law.



   

More self contradiction. You say sov cits are delusional but argue for their logical concept. (Their subjective view is irrelevant to my objectively describing their word twists).

Mao said that about guns in 1927. Your comment on poverty is irrelevant. = Today is not Thursday due to cold temperatures. Is this lunatic mind-set a product of Chinese education systems?

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 12:22pm: The original US constitution (see the preamble)  was created by "We the Citizens" . That's sovereignty.

 

Exactly: "we the citizens come together to create the sovereign government of the US... for the common welfare... "


Quote:

When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty?

(...proving there ARE such things as dumb questions...):

The care-taker government, until the election results are confirmed.


Quote:

The government needs to be created anew by citizens. (can you work out the difference between them and 'sovereign citizens'?)

Your error: you are confusing the processes/machinery of sovereign government with the citizens who choose the particular governing party (determined by majority vote in the case of multi-party democracies). 

Sovereignty resides in government, not in the disparate citizens and particular parties which can be turfed out at the next election.

Hence the rest of your post is GIGO....except your final observation, namely:

"China's fishermen  fishermen went to sea and own it as far as Borneo. China owns it."

Again, your fallacy of composition: some, not all of China's "fishermen", claimed sovereignty of the SCS for China, not for their "sovereign"(sic) selves.

Indeed nations claimed sovereignty according to historical adventures and circumstances

But that belongs to pre 1946 history when "might is right" ruled the waves (hence "Britannia rules the waves"...before it no longer did).

Hence the need for an international rules-based order, to avoid endless wars.   

See the blind "freedom or death" chimera twisting and turning.....

The contradictions are too large to be operated on and you may be in terminal decline.  Or we could make a great divide and amputate 1/2 your brain. Up to you.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 2:25pm:

The contradictions are too large to be operated on and you may be in terminal decline.  Or we could make a great divide and amputate 1/2 your brain. Up to you.

So here we have it: we see how the reptilian brain cripples the cortex brain: chimera can't even acknowledge the answer to his dumb question "When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty?"

The reptilian brain in all its blind, primitive force, lately displayed by Netanyahu when he accuses the UN of being "evil".

The human condition...and the child slaughtering goes on.

Your answer is wrong in fact. Wrong in concept. Made in China.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:11pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 3rd, 2024 at 6:19pm: Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least...... Actually it can't. The Australian Constitution was written at a time the American Civil war was within the living memory of those involved in its writing and the preamble contains the words "...one Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth..."  to make perfectly clear that once a colony joined it was permanent with no legal option to leave.  This was probably one reason new Zealand opted to remain apart. As for these 'sovereign citizens' the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want. Total separation from political and civil involvement. Of course this means that as they are not citizens they cannot access our welfare, education or healthcare services, have no call on our police and emergency services, cannot drive on our roads etc....they can be non citizens and enjoy all the perks that comes with it ;D  Good post.....but  poor old graps  will likely be content to say "you have made no argument", and disappear back into his sovereign citizen, 'voluntary agreement'  fantasy.

You have made no argument - a union entered into voluntarily may be broken at the will of a party.  If I join a club I can resign from it  - if I join a political party - I can quit.

At least you agree that OUR self-proclaimed 'sovereign citizens' who say they are not part of Australia should be given their own separate space, as a courtesy and a nod to their having been the First Invaders.

chimera wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 12:02pm:

Your answer is wrong in fact. Wrong in concept. Made in China.

"The care-taker government, until the election results are confirmed."


You forgot to say why that is "wrong in fact".

Low IQ?

It's wrong because it came from your anti-democratic CCP mind-twist. And your self-contradicting dogma, based on insults.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 12:06pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:57am: Belgarion wrote on Jun 11th, 2024 at 1:11pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 3rd, 2024 at 6:19pm: Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least...... Actually it can't. The Australian Constitution was written at a time the American Civil war was within the living memory of those involved in its writing and the preamble contains the words "...one Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth..."  to make perfectly clear that once a colony joined it was permanent with no legal option to leave.  This was probably one reason new Zealand opted to remain apart. As for these 'sovereign citizens' the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want. Total separation from political and civil involvement. Of course this means that as they are not citizens they cannot access our welfare, education or healthcare services, have no call on our police and emergency services, cannot drive on our roads etc....they can be non citizens and enjoy all the perks that comes with it ;D  Good post.....but  poor old graps  will likely be content to say "you have made no argument", and disappear back into his sovereign citizen, 'voluntary agreement'  fantasy.  You have made no argument - a union entered into voluntarily may be broken at the will of a party.  If I join a club I can resign from it  - if I join a political party - I can quit.

Your error: national constitutions are  established to institute rule of law - of necessity to avoid chaos among self-interested citizens (which we all are).

National constitutions are NOT promulgated  "voluntarily" by any or each individual of a nation, they are agreed to by chosen delegates on behalf of the citizens, in order to establish rule of law and (hopefully) serve the nation's (collective) well-being.

You CANNOT "resign" from rule of law established  under the sovereignty of the Oz nation.


Quote:

At least you agree that OUR self-proclaimed 'sovereign citizens' who say they are not part of Australia should be given their own separate space, as a courtesy and a nod to their having been the First Invaders.

"At least"?  But you (and I) DON'T agree with the absurd concept of separate 1st nations'sovereignty within the Oz nation's sovereignty which establishes rule of law in Oz. 

Those who have never surrendered sovereignty to another or former 'power' cannot be citizens of this state unless they accept citizenship of this state.  As long as they claim suzereignty under any other state exclusively they can receive no benefits from Australia.

Backpackers just wandering through do not receive benefits... ergo - those who claim to belong to some former empire equally hold no right to receive benefits.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 15^th, 2024 at 12:34pm:

Those who have never surrendered sovereignty to another or former 'power' cannot be citizens of this state unless they accept citizenship of this state.  As long as they claim suzereignty under any other state exclusively they can receive no benefits from Australia.

 


Two errors, the 2nd arising from the first:

1.  American Indians and Oz blacks were FORCED to accept the sovereignty imposed on them by the invaders.

2. Oz blacks DO receive  "welfare benefits"  from the Oz government.



Quote:

Backpackers just wandering through do not receive benefits... ergo - those who claim to belong to some former empire equally hold no right to receive benefits.

More GIGO: indeed, travellers to other countries aren't entitled to benefits from those countries; as opposed to those who claim 'sovereignty by citizenship' aka 'sovereign citizens' - who imagine they aren't subject to the sovereignty of the nation whose passport they hold -  are deluding themselves. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 8:13pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs

Brilliant video, clever acting and all.

"Sovereign citizens - living in an alternate reality...."

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 8:13pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs

That's brilliant

There's someone I know I'd love to show it to

but I'm afraid they're so far down that rabbit hole that it would be a waste of time

and I'd be in for a monumental rant and abuse.

None the less it's sort of like what I've told them before about this nonsense.

Do Sovereign Citizens Dream Of Artificial Votes?

Just keep in mind that the rejection of an unfair or unjust law is not an exercise in sovereign citizenship.... such an extreme can only be reached by entering into a civil war and literally enforcing the 'right' to go one's own way... we all know of laws that we refuse to abide by.... some silly law about treading on the toes of some snake if we climb our own national park mountain are not laws that are legally binding - they are silly laws - non-existent other than in the phantom realms of someone's mind... same as trannyism and Aboriginalism (Black Supremacism) ... "I feel therefore it must be or I'll prosecute you" is not a basis for a valid government..... and expecially it can never be the basis for the imposition of legalised violence on any individual or group...... (FCS keep up on 'lawfare', dorks - surely you can think for yourselves 5% of the time - I haven't got all day to hold your hands every step of the way....)


“Some failed herpetological experiment is no basis on which to form a valid argument to develop a multi-layered government by changing the Constitution!  True government comes from a mandate of the masses, willingly given and fully informed! We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!  We don't need no Voices in our heads telling us what to do!!”

Gnads wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 8:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2024 at 8:13pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs That's brilliant There's someone I know I'd love to show it to but I'm afraid they're so far down that rabbit hole that it would be a waste of time and I'd be in for a monumental rant and abuse. None the less it's sort of like what I've told them before about this nonsense.

Yes, once they've gone down the rabbit hole there's no coming back.

They would just say that everything in the video is wrong. The lawyers are wrong.

You can't reason with these people.


"I'm not driving, I'm travelling".     ;D

I'd like one of these cops to ask these morons to look at the gear lever in their car and ask them what position they put it in when they want to travel - 'Drive' or 'Travel'?

Morons.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 6:34am:

Just keep in mind that the rejection of an unfair or unjust law is not an exercise in sovereign citizenship....

You mean a law which advantages a particular (minority) group at the expense of others, requiring a majority in an election to overturn the "unjust"  law.   


Quote:

such an extreme can only be reached by entering into a civil war and literally enforcing the 'right' to go one's own way...

A civil war to walk on Ayres Rock is a bit extreme; a political party to achieve it might be a better way to go if you are passionate enough about it.

But indeed apparently  Trudeau is preparing for the possibility of a civil war in his Southern neighbour after Nov 5th....


Quote:

True government comes from a mandate of the masses, willingly given and fully informed!

I've exposed the error in that proposition  before; people ("the masses") have different opinions, and the 'experts' (supposedly fully informed)  are divided, so you won't necessarily be able to rely on an appeal to "the people" to get your way.

Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!!

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 4:15pm:

Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!!

Could you? And how does that refute the points I made in #99, to which you imagined you were replying?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:15pm: Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!! Could you? And how does that refute the points I made in #99, to which you imagined you were replying?

I was ignoring you, not replying to you, MR Strauss *- following the crowd, you see - not 'refuting' anything you say - not worth the trouble when people make nonsensical points' over and over by simply refusing reality.

https://www.tiktok.com/@memenheimer/video/7265434361531731246

Did it occur to you that they were talking about something more important than you?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 1:30pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:46am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:15pm: Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!! Could you? And how does that refute the points I made in #99, to which you imagined you were replying? I was ignoring you, not replying to you, MR Strauss *- following the crowd, you see - not 'refuting' anything you say - not worth the trouble when people make nonsensical points' over and over by simply refusing reality. https://www.tiktok.com/@memenheimer/video/7265434361531731246 Did it occur to you that they were talking about something more important than you?

I'm well aware your intellectual (sic) blindness renders you incapable of addressing the issue of " the people" ...each of whom has his own opinion, and therefore the concept of the 'sovereign citizen' is absurd since  sovereignty can only reside in government and rule of law.   Even King John recognised that when he was forced to sign the Magna Carta back in the day. 

Do try to keep up (access your brain).   

Check out this Aussie SovCit.

Insane, or just a poo-stirrer/attention whore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHxck5PtOU

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 3:49pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:30pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:46am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:15pm: Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!! Could you? And how does that refute the points I made in #99, to which you imagined you were replying? I was ignoring you, not replying to you, MR Strauss *- following the crowd, you see - not 'refuting' anything you say - not worth the trouble when people make nonsensical points' over and over by simply refusing reality. https://www.tiktok.com/@memenheimer/video/7265434361531731246 Did it occur to you that they were talking about something more important than you? I'm well aware your intellectual (sic) blindness renders you incapable of addressing the issue of " the people" ...each of whom has his own opinion, and therefore the concept of the 'sovereign citizen' is absurd since  sovereignty can only reside in government and rule of law.   Even King John recognised that when he was forced to sign the Magna Carta back in the day.  Do try to keep up (access your brain).

You are confused as usual - by yourself - I say people as sovereign - in that sense each individual is sovereign .... it has nothing to do with THIS 'sovereign citizen' thing at all..... it just says that in our form of democracy the people SHOULD properly hold the power - must I refer you once more to Gilbert and Sullivan?

Even back then smart people realised the reality of power and the chicanery of politics -and how the real power in the land, rather than residing with the voting public - actually resides with those who determine who they get to vote for.... pals on the inside...

... make connections..... get elected to some tiny seat by 100 votes ..... next thing you know you are appointed First Lord Of The Admiralty without ever having set foot on a ship... we get that here with 'magistrates' and 'judges' and such as well as politicians and now top rank APPOINTED 'public servants', who are mates of parties in reality and do as they are told and want to do anyway.... same agenda.....

That's how we got Robodebt ....  that's how we get all this Aboriginal activism trouble endless ..... that's how we get all the division and poor law-making and poor court decisions over and over ... that's how we get neo-Feudalism, the belief in the divine right of elected government to do as it pleases, creeping into elected politics.... that's how we get the belief in 'judges' etc that rather than being servants of the law with obligations, they simply have absolute power (and we all know where that leads) ... and that leads us to the situation where people with the ear of government can go about creating trouble after trouble out of thin air and just keep pushing the envelopes/the boundaries, like the children they are in reality ........

I'm not the only one who sees these things clearly.... but we tend to forgive the autistic like you.... we're a kind lot, we Realists.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jul 12^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 3:49pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 1:30pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20th, 2024 at 11:46am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jun 19th, 2024 at 4:15pm: Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!! Could you? And how does that refute the points I made in #99, to which you imagined you were replying? I was ignoring you, not replying to you, MR Strauss *- following the crowd, you see - not 'refuting' anything you say - not worth the trouble when people make nonsensical points' over and over by simply refusing reality. https://www.tiktok.com/@memenheimer/video/7265434361531731246 Did it occur to you that they were talking about something more important than you? I'm well aware your intellectual (sic) blindness renders you incapable of addressing the issue of " the people" ...each of whom has his own opinion, and therefore the concept of the 'sovereign citizen' is absurd since  sovereignty can only reside in government and rule of law.   Even King John recognised that when he was forced to sign the Magna Carta back in the day.  Do try to keep up (access your brain).    I say people as sovereign - in that sense each individual is sovereign .... it has nothing to do with THIS 'sovereign citizen' thing at all.....

1. Your errors revealed straight away:  "the people as sovereign," does NOT lead to  "each individual is sovereign".

Note: Even King John ("the Crown") was forced to admit the limits of HIS individual  "sovereignty", even though he WAS "sovereign"  ("the Crown"....) 

See your error now?

2.  It has EVERTHING to do with "THIS sovereign citizen thing";  see King John signing the Magna Charter.


Quote:

it just says that in our form of democracy the people SHOULD properly hold the power - must I refer you once more to Gilbert and Sullivan?

Your error: the people in the aggregate, represented by their government is sovereign, no one individual is sovereign under rule of law established by government.

(No need to refer to G&S, their characters are no doubt as confused as you). 


Quote:

Even back then smart people realised the reality of power and the chicanery of politics -and how the real power in the land, rather than residing with the voting public - actually resides with those who determine who they get to vote for.... pals on the inside...

But you are still stuck with the fact self-interested individuals divide c. 50-50, in 'democratic elections', to elect parties with supposedly different policies which supposedly benefit the individuals who elect those opposing parties. 

The real problem is voters expect politicians to make  beneficial  changes in their lives, but newly elected governments can't raise the necessary funds without increasing taxes and debt.

Exhibit 1: Poor Liz Truss: when she tried to REDUCE taxes she was forced out - not by the electorate, but by the state's money lenders who believed the UK government would not be able to repay its loans to those same money-lenders, if taxes were reduced.

Now Starmer is already back-tracking: the promise to reduce child poverty will "have to wait", because "the nation is broke", and he promised not to raise taxes...

All becauuse of deplorable lies of the current financial/central bank orthodoxy, which have you hooked, line-and-sinker.


Quote:

That's how we got Robodebt ....

Robodebt was a disastrous money-pinching exercise, forced on government by its lenders to 'balance the budget", as noted above.


Quote:

the belief in the divine right of elected government to do as it pleases, creeping into elected politics.... that's how we get the belief in 'judges' etc that rather than being servants of the law with obligations, they simply have absolute power (and we all know where that leads) ... and that leads us to the situation where people with the ear of government can go about creating trouble after trouble out of thin air and just keep pushing the envelopes/the boundaries, like the children they are in reality ........

You are describing the experiences of  democratic governments which are forced to rely on funding by private money lenders.

(Speaking of "creating out of thin air", that's how money is created, and it's a power which  should also reside in government (to purchase what is available for purchase) as well as a power reserved for private money lenders, as at present).


Quote:

I'm not the only one who sees these things clearly.... but we tend to forgive the autistic like you.... we're a kind lot, we Realists.

Not so so fast, hairy legs (...to borrow a phrase) ....but yes, generosity is a wonderful thing.

"I say people as sovereign - in that sense each individual is sovereign" ....

See your error now?  Leaving out the descriptor part ... hello???

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12^th, 2024 at 12:57pm:

Check out this Aussie SovCit. Insane, or just a poo-stirrer/attention whore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHxck5PtOU

I'd like to hear others' opinions.

Do you think this guy has mental health issues, or does he just get off causing trouble?

These SovCits are weird dudes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14^th, 2024 at 12:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12th, 2024 at 12:57pm: Check out this Aussie SovCit. Insane, or just a poo-stirrer/attention whore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHxck5PtOU I'd like to hear others' opinions. Do you think this guy has mental health issues, or does he just get off causing trouble? These SovCits are weird dudes.

Got to be F I T H .... who in their right mind could think they had the power to arrest the Magistrate, the Police Prosecutor & then the other Policeman who wouldn't listen to his ramblings?

I think they were extremely patient with his BS... I think he should have been held in contempt of court and he be arrested & put in jail for a stint.

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14th, 2024 at 12:24pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12th, 2024 at 12:57pm: Check out this Aussie SovCit. Insane, or just a poo-stirrer/attention whore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHxck5PtOU I'd like to hear others' opinions. Do you think this guy has mental health issues, or does he just get off causing trouble? These SovCits are weird dudes. Got to be F I T H .... who in their right mind could think they had the power to arrest the Magistrate, the Police Prosecutor & then the other Policeman who wouldn't listen to his ramblings? I think they were extremely patient with his BS... I think he should have been held in contempt of court and he be arrested & put in jail for a stint.

These SovCits are so insane.

And I agree, he should have been dragged out of there and put in a cell.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jul 14^th, 2024 at 11:49am:

"I say people as sovereign - in that sense each individual is sovereign" .... See your error now?  Leaving out the descriptor part ... hello???

No, I don't "see my error now", so let's see if we can clear it up,  especially today when Trump came within mms of death owing to apparently irreconciliable political differences, or conceptions of reality.

Graps:  I say people as sovereign - in that sense each individual is sovereign .... it has nothing to do with THIS 'sovereign citizen' thing at all.....


Re the first bit:

Graps: "I say people as sovereign".

1. It's poor English, possibly the result of confusion on your part, trying to equate  "people" - plural, meaning "the people", with "each individual".

Can you please rewrite your sentence, eg "I (insert new word/s) people as sovereign", so that it makes grammatical and reasonable sense? 

And so I can understand how you reject my correction of your error, namely: "(the) people as sovereign," does NOT lead to  "each individual is sovereign".