What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

The greatest fraud on Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frosty Nuggets

Frosty Nuggets

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
The following document explains the greatest fraud on Earth from the straw man to the corporations masquerading as government to the legal system scam to what is behind all wars and the banking scam.
You won't find this on TV or in schools for a very good reason, the powers that claim to be don't want you to know because they will lose all power over you.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

 
Frosty Nuggets

Frosty Nuggets

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
JKD said:
If it works for you in court, let us know.
Click to expand...
Watch the video's, one is a woman winning in court because she refused to be the strawman, the other is about winning in court against fines which are illegal without a conviction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JKD
JKD

JKD

Well-known member
Veteran
That seems to be an audio clip with no evidence that it is authentic or actually taking place in a court.

These are a few losses that can be found in case law databases:

United States:

  1. U.S. v. Schneider (2013): Defendant claimed not to be subject to the court's jurisdiction; court ruled arguments frivolous and without merit.
  2. U.S. v. Benabe (2010): Defendants identified as sovereign citizens; court rejected arguments and convicted them of conspiracy and other crimes.
  3. U.S. v. Hart (2011): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under federal law; court ruled arguments frivolous and without merit.
  4. U.S. v. Beane and Tucci-Jarraf (2018): Sovereign citizen arguments rejected; defendants convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
  5. U.S. v. Hilgeford (1990): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
  6. U.S. v. Mitchell (1997): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code; court dismissed arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  7. U.S. v. Burston (2003): Defendant claimed "Free Moor" status; court rejected arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  8. U.S. v. Thomas (2007): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of tax evasion.
  9. U.S. v. Rice (2012): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court dismissed arguments and sentenced him to prison for tax evasion.
  10. U.S. v. Williams (2012): Defendant claimed government was a corporation and not subject to U.S. jurisdiction; court rejected arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  11. U.S. v. Hood (2016): Defendant claimed "secured party creditor" status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of tax fraud.
  12. U.S. v. Sloan (2019): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and convicted him of bankruptcy fraud.
Canada:

  1. Meads v. Meads (2012): Court provided comprehensive analysis of "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) litigants and rejected their tactics as having no basis in law.
  2. R. v. Duncan (2013): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court rejected arguments and convicted him.
  3. R. v. Jory (2013): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under the law; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
United Kingdom:

  1. Mead v. Registrar of Births and Deaths (2012): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
New Zealand:

  1. R. v. Mansfield (2015): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
  2. R. v. Ruka (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
Australia:

  1. DPP v. Mathews (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and convicted him.
  2. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Keshmiri (2018): Defendant claimed to have revoked consent to be governed; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
  3. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Freeman (2017): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court dismissed arguments and found him guilty.
  4. R. v. Rhodes (2015): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
  5. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Letten (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of financial fraud.
You can also find a lot more in news articles searching ‘sovereign citizen guilty’, or ‘sovereign citizen convicted’, or similar.

Good luck to you though.
 
Last edited:
Douglas.Curtis

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
beta said:
"People said Galileo was wrong. People say I am wrong. Therefore I am right, like Galileo."
Click to expand...
You are wrong because you seem to have no understanding of the base concept here. Sticking with it will never make you correct.

Now if you know a 'truth' which many people do not, who also believe the opposite of this truth, you would fit the "society says I am wrong, but eventually they will accept the truth," model.
 
JKD

JKD

Well-known member
Veteran
beta was using the 'Galileo' post to highlight the false analogy/faulty generalisation fallacy in the quote misattributed to Schopenhauer. Use of the quote was itself a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority.

The 'straw-man' argument presented is inherently contradictory. Only a living person can violate the laws they claim do not apply to them, since the 'straw-man' is merely a construct of words and lacks the ability to act.

Believing these claims is unfortunate as these beliefs are not shared by those who create or enforce the law.

But, to each their own.
 
Last edited:
Frosty Nuggets

Frosty Nuggets

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
JKD said:
That seems to be an audio clip with no evidence that it is authentic or actually taking place in a court.

These are a few losses that can be found in case law databases:

United States:

  1. U.S. v. Schneider (2013): Defendant claimed not to be subject to the court's jurisdiction; court ruled arguments frivolous and without merit.
  2. U.S. v. Benabe (2010): Defendants identified as sovereign citizens; court rejected arguments and convicted them of conspiracy and other crimes.
  3. U.S. v. Hart (2011): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under federal law; court ruled arguments frivolous and without merit.
  4. U.S. v. Beane and Tucci-Jarraf (2018): Sovereign citizen arguments rejected; defendants convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
  5. U.S. v. Hilgeford (1990): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
  6. U.S. v. Mitchell (1997): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code; court dismissed arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  7. U.S. v. Burston (2003): Defendant claimed "Free Moor" status; court rejected arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  8. U.S. v. Thomas (2007): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of tax evasion.
  9. U.S. v. Rice (2012): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court dismissed arguments and sentenced him to prison for tax evasion.
  10. U.S. v. Williams (2012): Defendant claimed government was a corporation and not subject to U.S. jurisdiction; court rejected arguments and convicted him of tax evasion.
  11. U.S. v. Hood (2016): Defendant claimed "secured party creditor" status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of tax fraud.
  12. U.S. v. Sloan (2019): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and convicted him of bankruptcy fraud.
Canada:

  1. Meads v. Meads (2012): Court provided comprehensive analysis of "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) litigants and rejected their tactics as having no basis in law.
  2. R. v. Duncan (2013): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court rejected arguments and convicted him.
  3. R. v. Jory (2013): Defendant claimed not to be a "person" under the law; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
United Kingdom:

  1. Mead v. Registrar of Births and Deaths (2012): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
New Zealand:

  1. R. v. Mansfield (2015): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
  2. R. v. Ruka (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
Australia:

  1. DPP v. Mathews (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and convicted him.
  2. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Keshmiri (2018): Defendant claimed to have revoked consent to be governed; court rejected arguments and found him guilty.
  3. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Freeman (2017): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court dismissed arguments and found him guilty.
  4. R. v. Rhodes (2015): Defendant claimed "Freeman-on-the-Land" status; court dismissed arguments and convicted him.
  5. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Letten (2016): Defendant claimed sovereign citizen status; court rejected arguments and found him guilty of financial fraud.
You can also find a lot more in news articles searching ‘sovereign citizen guilty’, or ‘sovereign citizen convicted’, or similar.

Good luck to you though.
Click to expand...
Quoting that is like quoting the Mafia on Law.
 
JKD

JKD

Well-known member
Veteran
I think this is in the bible, between Job & Proverbs

Once upon a time in a quaint little village, there lived two groups of people. The first group was a group of children who strongly believed in Santa Claus, and the second group was a group of adults who called themselves the Sovereign Citizens. Both groups were known for their unwavering belief in their respective ideas.

As the holiday season approached, the children of the village wrote letters to Santa Claus, expecting him to deliver their wishes on Christmas Eve. The Sovereign Citizens, on the other hand, continued to argue that they were not subject to the laws and regulations of the village, believing that they were above such rules.

One day, a wise old man named Ambrose visited the village. He was known far and wide for his wisdom and his ability to discern truth from fiction. Intrigued by the strong beliefs of both groups, he decided to call for a village meeting.

The children gathered, proudly sharing their tales of Santa Claus and how they received gifts from him every year. The Sovereign Citizens stood their ground, declaring their independence from the village's laws and explaining their beliefs in alternative interpretations of the law.

Ambrose listened intently to both groups, and when they finished, he spoke. "Your beliefs are strong, and I understand why you hold on to them. However, strength of belief alone does not make something true," he said.

He turned to the children and continued, "You see, Santa Claus is a symbol of joy, kindness, and generosity. Your parents, who love you dearly, have been the ones placing gifts under the tree each year. They do this to uphold the spirit of the season and bring happiness to your hearts."

The children were initially shocked, but slowly they came to understand that the true meaning of the holiday season was not the existence of Santa Claus, but the love and joy shared within the community.

Ambrose then addressed the Sovereign Citizens, "And you, my friends, have created an alternate reality for yourselves. The village's laws apply to all its inhabitants, regardless of your belief. While you may not agree with every law, it is through cooperation and dialogue with the community that change can be achieved."

Some of the Sovereign Citizens were taken aback, realizing the error in their thinking. They understood that their belief in their own sovereignty, no matter how strong, could not alter the reality that they were part of the village and subject to its laws.

Ambrose concluded, "Belief is a powerful force, but it cannot create truth on its own. It is only through seeking knowledge, understanding, and engaging with the world around us that we can truly find the truth."

And so, the village learned an important lesson that day: the strength of one's belief, no matter how deeply held, cannot create truth on its own. Both the children and the Sovereign Citizens were humbled, and the village became a more harmonious place for all who lived there.

Good luck to you
 
Last edited:
Frosty Nuggets

Frosty Nuggets

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Nice STORY but this is NOT sovereign citizen bullshit, you have just proved that the CIA has weaponised the sovereign citizen movement to make people like you have a knee jerk reaction to anyone who questions the system.

The FACT is that the legal system is Maritime Law (the Law of the open ocean/water) or contract Law which REQUIRES consent.
The Law of the land is Common Law which applies to EVERYBODY and does NOT require consent, it is quite simply 'do no harm', that is why ignorance of the Law is no excuse, ignorance of legislation is EVERY excuse as it is written in Legalese NOT English, legislation ONLY applies to corporations NOT living flesh and blood men and women.

Just because they have been getting away with the fraud since the 1930's does NOT mean it is right and Lawful.







 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Exquisite Marijuana Seeds Hemp & CBD | Cannoptikum.
Top