Da Kine 17, I spent many too many hours reading so much of your sovereign citizen meanderings years ago that this time i decided to cut to the chase without studying your links. Which one of your links did that come from? I reckon they still aren't worth reading.
It would have helped if you had outed that particular quote in your first reply. Anyway you had all the feel of a sovereign citizen good to have that bit confirmed.
Most of the rebuttals to your peoples' positions i read over ten years ago have retreated to twilight zones, but though this first bit may not (i'm not sure at this stage) address your gold standard point (invalid, no doubt) directly i'm guessing it's a start.
Certainly much of your twisted pseudo legalese would be addressed in this document.
The first excerpt is from page 21 of 59.
8-1-2019A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement
Caesar Kalinowski IV Caesar Kalinowski IV, Commercial Litigator, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
[...]
1. The U.S. Constitution and constitutional rights
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the United States Declaration of Independence. As stated by the Declaration’s preamble, all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”142 “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, [and they] deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]”143 These aspirational statements do not provide substantive rights nor do they have “have the force of organic law.”144 In the Declaration’s final section, how-ever, it proclaimed that the United States owed no allegiance or loyalty to the British crown and were no longer subject to its laws.145 This section alone, arguably, is the only statement in the Declaration that does more than provide a statement of facts or grievances; it provides the justification for the American Revolution. Effectively, other than establishing that the United States “of Right ought to be Free and Independent States,” the Declaration has no binding or legal force.146
The Articles of Confederation, which first established a federal government in 1781, likely lost their binding force with the ratification required under Article VII of the proposed Constitution.147 Under Article VI, Clause2, of the Constitution, also known as the “Supremacy Clause,” only the“Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]”148Accordingly, members of the federal government who swear oaths to the https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450&context=mlr
A further quick look. Ok, this to p 22
Constitution, as well as “the Judges in every State,” are bound by this “supreme Law.”149 In sum, the Constitution—and statutes or treaties lawfully made under the Constitution—are the binding law that citizens are protected by and must follow.2.
Interpreting the Constitution and case law
In rebutting Sovereign Citizen arguments, however, it is necessary to establish what is and what is not binding law under the Constitution—as well as who has the power to decide those questions. Academic or elementary as it may be to lawyers, Sovereign Citizens routinely use as “evidence”non-constitutional and non-binding authorities. Under Article III, Section 2,the power of the federal judiciary is “extend[ed] to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority[.]”150 In Marbury v. Madison,151 the Supreme Court established its role in reviewing the laws and the Constitution:
- [I]f a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which ofthese conflicting rules governs the case.152 -
This judicial power of constitutional and federal statutory review,which is “vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,”153 has also necessarily been extended to review state civil154 and criminal155 cases that implicate the Constitution or federal law. The authority of the judiciary, stemming from Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, applies:
- [t]o all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”156 https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450&context=mlr
It's not easy for transpose the content to here.
Enough of that one for now. Life's too short. There will be a limit as to how much of your sovereign citizen gobbledygook will be tolerated. Don't flood the board with it.
James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School
by Jack Rakove
William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies; Professor of Political Science and, by courtesy, Law at Stanford University
Article I, Section 10 contains a long, somewhat diverse list of prohibitions on the power of the states to engage in certain activities. Understanding its significance depends on first placing it within the larger framework of Article I, which is primarily devoted to setting out the structure of Congress and then enumerating its legislative powers. Those activities occupy Sections 1 through 8. Section 9 prohibits a broad array of activities by the federal government, which run the gamut from weakening the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to taxing exports from the states.
Section 10 imposes a similar list of prohibitions on the powers of the states. Clause 1 contains absolute prohibitions that Congress cannot waive. Clauses 2 and 3 impose prohibitions that Congress can waive—presumably by legislation, although the text does not make clear whether any joint resolution is subject to a presidential veto. It is difficult to explain why the prohibitions found in Clause 1 cannot be waived by Congress while those in the last two clauses can be. But in both cases, the state interests are made subordinate to those of the national government.
These prohibitions in Section 10 can be divided into several subclasses. One group imposes on the states some of the restrictions that Section 9 imposed on Congress: the power to pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, or to grant titles of nobility. A second category guarantees that matters of war and diplomacy belong primarily or exclusively to the national government. The states are prohibited from forming compacts with foreign nations or even with each other without the assent of Congress.
A third category applies to financial matters, dealing with such issues as the power to coin money, emit bills of credit, or lay duties on imports and exports. During the Revolutionary War, both the Continental Congress and the states resorted to the massive issuance of various instruments of credit, unsecured by adequate taxation. The resulting depreciation in the value of these instruments, coupled with the corresponding inflation of prices, created a strong consensus to empower Congress to secure the public credit of the United States by levying its own taxes and limiting, though hardly eliminating, the financial powers of the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, both the Continental Congress and the states had the authority to coin money, but only Congress could fix its “alloy and value.” The evident intention is to give that power exclusively to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5.
Section 10, Clause 1 contains a general prohibition against states emitting letters of credit, unless, as it came to be understood, they were drawn on some specific fund set aside for that purpose. The result reads like a compromise designed to prevent the open-ended use of state credit without shutting down the capacity of the states to borrow at all. These provisions, together with the requirement that only gold and silver could be used for legal tender, stem from the desire to insulate other states in the union from the fiscal shocks created by any single state.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
