REBUTTAL: Sovereign Citizens: Pseudolaw & Disorder, Munecat-Rebuttal
This video is mainly about English and Canadian “sovereign citizens”. We do not advocate any aspect of “sovereign citizen” ideology, but we do have “sovereignty” in our name and get mistakenly lumped together with such people. The above video contained links to the following Wikipedia articles:
- Sovereign citizen movement. It’s quite interesting that this long article about “sovereign citizens” doesn’t mention us or disprove any of the evidence on our site.
- Pseudolaw
This foul-mouthed woman who uses the word “fuck” more often in her video than any other youtube video we have seen appears well-resourced, probably by a government, to try to slander the freedom community. The least she could do is disclose whether she has any governmental sponsors, which seems likely. She hyper-focuses on Robert Menard of Canada. The one court case she cited was for Canada, and we aren’t qualified to comment on Canadian law and therefore won’t comment on it here. We also won’t comment on English or Canadian freedom movements. They are irrelevant to our audience, which is the USA.
She even features art work from http://sovereignfilings.com at minutes 11 and 17. Sovereign filings offers our printed books. She therefore came REALLY close to home, and probably stumbled on our site by finding Sovereign Filings, but avoided us like the plague. I guess there is too much evidence on our site to deal with and she isn’t interested in real evidence or law.
As a female elitist, she slanders men in her video at 1:32:00, and yet accuses “sovereign citizens” of being supremacists. She attacks sovcits for “pseudolaw”, but as we explain at the end of this article, quoting the civil statutory law against a non-domiciled party also makes it “pseudolaw”. She complains about “ad hominem” attacks by sovereignty advocates, and yet her ENTIRE article is exactly that. Quite the hypocrite. It wouldn’t be ad hominem if she presented facts and evidence, but she doesn’t present ANYTHING written to disprove any of the legal evidence or research presented on this site, and neither do the two written articles she references. When she stumbled on us after visiting sovereignfilings.com, she probably figured it would take a lifetime to even learn enough to rebut anything on this site, so she passed, and went after the low-hanging fruit, such as videos instead of real legal argument. Negligent and lazy at best.
She not once EVER criticizes any government, so she is probably funded by a government. The least she could do is be more balanced and look at both sides. She only looks at one side, so its not journalism, but propaganda. If you want the OTHER side, see:
Government Corruption, Form #11.401
Her presentation is remarkably devoid of evidence, which ironically is her biggest complaint about the sovereign citizen movement. She shows two documents but they don’t address legal inaccuracies in the sovcit movement. The least she should do is present court admissible evidence to back up her unfounded allegations. We provide tons of written evidence to back up everything we say that you can not only read from its original source (other than us), but use in court. So, like the people she criticizes, she is spreading misinformation and belief rather than facts. Our readers are forbidden by our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, from relying on emotions or opinions in their litigation, unlike her.
Below is a summary of our position on the various chapters of what she covers to distinguish ourself from her slander of sovereignty generally:
- The Grift
There is no sales pitch here. We just want people to learn the law and follow what they are demonstrably subject to. They are forbidden by our Member Agreement, Form #01.001 from joining for financial or commercial reasons, so there can’t be a commercial sales pitch or motivation in our case other that justice as legally defined. See:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
People who have purely commercial motivations for learning about freedom or using our materials we refer to as “Pay-Triots For Profit”. They are discouraged from joining. See:
How to Spot a “Pay-Triot For Profit” Con Man - Sovcit Subtypes
We don’t mind paying tax, but most people pay WAY more than they should by virtue of bundling things people don’t want with things they do and making them pay for both, as well as engaging in criminal identity theft by the government through the abuse of legal deception, equivocation, and converting them into public officers against their consent. Income tax is not unconstitutional, but in the USA, enforcing it outside of federal territory is illegal. See:
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
She also states that sovcits believe the U.S. government has been illegitimate since 1871. We don’t agree with that either. We agree only that the District of Columbia is a private corporation and not a government, and that the “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code is geographically defined to be coincident with this private corporation. See:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government Form #05.024, Section 14.4 - The Sovcit Franchise
She didn’t say the basis for what she calls the “Sovcit Franchise” is wrong, so there is nothing to rebut there. The paper she links to is:
A Rebellion of Furious Paper, Donald J Netolisky
The above paper focuses on English common law countries mainly. The paper focuses on getting things for free or a get out of jail free card, both of which are forbidden by our Member Agreement, so the paper really doesn’t address us. The paper says sovcits regard their children as property, which we don’t. The paper says sovcits advocate everything is a contract. Domicile is a “compact”, and compacts are contracts. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
The article is mum on “No Injured Party” being a fallacy. It doesn’t address the main problem with civil statutory law, which is involuntary servitude for those who don’t want its protections. Slavery is illegal everywhere in the world. Therefore, they seem to agree on the following as a legitimate basis to challenge enforcement of victimless crimes:
Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073
Why isn’t she devoting equal time to GOVERNMENT franchises that are the origin of the loss of most constitutional rights? She only wants to talk about Sovcit franchises. And if the government can use it against us and we are all supposed to be treated equally, why can’t we use it against them. Hypocrite and elitist! See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 - Common Law and Statutory Law
We do not claim to be immune from all statutory law. Our members must consent to be subject to the common law and the criminal law. - Semantics Obsession
We agree the David Wynmiller’s semantic obsession is ridiculous and don’t support it. We do, however, object to the abuse of logical fallacies such as equivocation by judges, the IRS, and the Dept. of Injustice to reach people they have no jurisdiction over within the constitutional states. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 - White Supremacist Origin
We believe everyone is equal. Freedom itself depends on equal treatment of all and equality in court between the governed and the governors. So we aren’t supremacists. We have lots of non-white members, women, and business entrepreneurs. See:
Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 1 - Violent Terrorism and Paper Terrorism
We are a non-violent Christian ministry. The IRS is the biggest purveyor of paper terrorism and most of it is fraudulent, because the authority to collect derives from deliberately false third party reports that effectively ELECT people against their consent into a public office. If she is going to criticize paper terrorism, she needs to give the government equal time. See:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001 - Pro Se Litigant Court Antics
We don’t allow our materials to be abused to escape personal responsibility for agreements we made or injuries we inflict. Thus, we are not “vexatious litigants”. They propose questions for “gurus” that involve a violation of our member agreement such as asking them to indemnify those who use the arguments. Our ministry requires that people take FULL, COMPLETE, PERSONAL responsibility for all their choices and transfer none to anyone else, and that they rely only on their own reading of the written law and not the opinion of any man. - Psychology
Since we tell people they should not trust any man and the only thing they can rely on is their own reading of the written law, our personality, charisma, and any and all psychological tricks are literally IMPOSSIBLE. We don’t even tell people our name, because we are acting as agents for the one and only sovereign, who is God.
Now for comments on specific off the cuff remarks by this woman, who seems to want to talk about everything EXCEPT real law. She’s an entertainer, not a researcher:
- We don’t advocate anarchy or that we are subject to NO LAW or NO STATUTES. Like everyone, we are subject to the common law and the criminal law. She lumps the criminal and civil statutes together as simply “statutes” and accuses sovereignty advocates of throwing BOTH out. See:
Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020 - We don’t advocate a specific candidate for office. Like Jesus, we are apolitical.
- We don’t believe in aliens or that we are aliens. We DO, however, advocate the following as a legal “term of art” that we didn’t invent. The GOVERNMENT is the one that calls people who are free “nonresident aliens”, so they invented it, probably hoping the dissonance of the name would cause people to avoid it:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020 - We don’t believe in Q-Anon, anyone else who operates anonymously, or anyone, and especially the government, if they are not legally accountable for telling the truth. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 - We don’t think the military is going to restore the lawful presidency as Q-Anon does.
- We don’t trust any discussion, like hers, that only discusses one side of the argument. Its not journalism or debate, but propaganda we avoid unless slandered unjustly by people like her.
The legal field is a very complex one. The average human receives NO LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL training in PUBLIC school. The wolves in government don’t want the sheep to know who is in charge, obviously because they run the public FOOL system. Learning the law is the ONLY way these sheep would even KNOW they are supposed to be in charge, of course.
For the same government wolves to then maliciously attack people for being so legally ignorant that they engage in “pseudo law” as is called in this video because they don’t have the same level of experience or knowledge as their wolf counterparts is ridiculous.
“He has a right to criticize who has a heart to help. The rest is cruelty, not justice.”
[William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania]
The subjects that freedom minded people raise in court are almost always Third Rail issues that judges do not want to talk about and could be prosecuted criminally if they expressed knowledge about these subjects. Job #1 is protecting their “plausible deniability”. So naturally they call it gibberish as in the above video and say they don’t understand. It’s often NOT that they don’t understand, its that like any mafia, they only protect themselves, and plausible deniability and ignorance is their main method of protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability. If they wanted to understand, they would ask questions, which they NEVER do. Those who feign ignorance about what is being discussed, censor the court record to keep evidence out of the record of their own malicious activities, will be safer from liability for their malicious misdeeds. It will be very difficult to prove “mens rea”, or evil intent, in their case.
Ironically, what she calls “pseudolaw” includes the entire civil code in the case of people not domiciled in the forum. Any attempt to quote it against those without a domicile, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, ultimately makes these codes “pseudolaw” and the person enforcing them guilty of “simulation of legal process”, which is a crime in many states. See the proof for yourself:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
The people she criticizes in most cases got interested in the subject matter because they were:
- Injured unjustly by a government or government actor. See Form #05.048.
- Lied to by the government. See Form #05.014.
- Forced to politically or legally associate with the “state” through government ID. See Form #05.002
- Made the unjust target of “selective enforcement” for their political beliefs or advocacy. This often happens because they are in a whistleblowing mode trying to expose or prosecute government corruption.
And yet, she refuses to mention the accountability of government or government actors for any of these abuses. If people weren’t abused in some way above, they probably wouldn’t have become interested in sovereignty or legal education at all. But of course she isn’t interested in the REASONS people pursue this because she is an apologist and propagandist for the state, most likely.
She ought to quit drinking her wine, like she did at the end of the video, and start reading the REAL law, abundantly published on our site. We don’t give a DAMN about her opinions, which is basically everything in her video. There is lots of “disorder” in the lives of people who try to drink and learn and practice law at the same time.
As long as people like this legally ignorant woman refuse to read or discuss the law or rebut the above and would rather sip their wine while slandering others with emotions and opinions in a factual vacuum, the problems she complains of will never be fixed. Relying on what other covetous legal experts say, like what she did in this article, instead of reading the law for herself is how our society got so corrupted to begin with. Living in a secular spiritual vacuum absent religious content like her makes things even worst.
Get off your ass and help educate people about freedom, instead of attacking them. Show them the RIGHT way to advocate freedom, instead of promoting their ignorance, not educating them, slandering them for the legal ignorance manufactured by the public fool system, and putting the people who made them legally ignorant on a pedestal. Unless, of course, you are government mole who never wants to help their enemy but pretends to want to help them. How much is that government welfare check you get for running your channel? Another useful idiot for socialist dictators is what she is.
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
Lastly, we published a link to this article in the comments section of the above video. The channel owner DELETED it. She isn’t interested in facts or journalism, but filtered propaganda.
The REAL and WORST “grifters” as she calls them is the government, which she conveniently entirely omits from her video. Look at the MASSIVE evidence of this at:
Government Corruption, Form 11.401
https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/
Why don’t you do a video on THIS, you propagandist government shill Munecat?
Rebuttals to other common objections to freedom and sovereignty like these can be found at:
Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.019
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf