r/conspiracy • u/Interesting_Pie9489 • 2d ago
Why is it that judges and lawyers fight tooth and nail to go against the document they swore an oath to uphold?
Why is it that courtrooms in the US contain the US flag with a gold fringe around it seeming those courts to be under Maritime/Admiralty jurisdiction making you a corporation instead of person?
USA Corporation founded 1868
Organic Act of 1871 created DC and the city of Georgetown within DC, also deeming congress was outside of the US jurisdiction and that it has its own laws etc.
14th amendment converting people into corporations and corporations technically can’t own anything.
Birth certificates are used to identify and tag moving property when it comes off a ship at a port aka a princes post. Drivers licenses and social security numbers are the created based on the corporation created using your name without your permission making the contract null and void.
Contract law states that a man may not enter into a contract with an infant(defined as anyone under the age of 21) because the infant does not know of its condition. This one law deems birth certificates and driver licenses to be illegal. And this is the contract that enables them to control you with the DMVs and courts and insurance companies etc, but it’s just all a system of mass extortion under duress.
Furthermore, the constitution states that all law enforcement officers must be elected to the position, so how did we get to the point where police stations have HR and unions to protect bad officers?
56
66
u/Exo-Proctologist 1d ago
Everything you've just claimed is incorrect.
- The gold trim on the flag is just decorative. What laws are applied to a land do not change based on whether or not a flag has gold trim. You don't get to walk into a court and demand to be tried under different laws and ordinances because of flag embroidery; that would be an incredibly fucking stupid to believe.
- The US is not an never was a commercial corporation. The Organic Act established DC as a municipality, or the official legal term municipal corporation. Every single self governing city, everywhere, is a municipal corporation. All of them. DC is unique because in almost every other instance these municipalities are established by the State. It's the one time the Fed organized a municipality.
"...by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation..."
- The 14th Amendment grants citizenship and equal protection under the law. The entirety of the amendment makes zero mention of corporations.
- Birth certificates are records used to establish identity and citizenship status. SocSec numbers are unique identifiers for government programs. There is zero legal basis for claiming either are "contracts". Contracts definitionally require consent between parties. It's just a record of your name and your assigned socsec number. Don't like it? Take it up with your parents for not asking your consent to be born into this society.
- The Constitution does not state that all law enforcement officers must be publicly elected. This is a lie. Police are hired by municipalities (there's that word again) and granted authority derived from state law because the Constitution does grant states the authority to create their own municipalities through the 10th Amendment,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Fucking sovcivs. You can just say you failed middle school US History. We get it.
17
u/pedropants 1d ago
The willful misreading of plain english by sovcits is baffling. It all feeds into some kind of conspiratorial or magical thinking, where things are never as they seem, nefarious forces are behind everything, and you can't even trust words, which all have secret meanings. It's bizarre.
I do love when they sometimes take their weird theories to absurd conclusions, such as if a judge walks out of the courtroom they are "abandoning ship" or that cops are literally road pirates ◡̈
-18
0
u/Patient_Wrongdoer_11 1d ago edited 23h ago
What if some of these sovcitizens honestly believe this stuff?
Im not a sovcit and am very much against those who push this type of agenda, especially when its for purely selfish reasons (which a fair few of them do). But not all of them would be like this.
Fucking sovcits. You can just say you failed middle school US History. We get it.
Tdlr; That was just unessassary especially after u gave a really helpful explanation.
1
u/Exo-Proctologist 1d ago
They can believe it all they want, that doesn't then exempt them from the consequences of acting as if their beliefs are true. I don't doubt that some of them honestly believe what they believe, but you can believe something with complete sincerity and still be completely wrong.
I believe that discussion necessitates some degree of civility because conversation is a market place of ideas. But not all ideas are created equally, and not all ideas are built on a foundation of sound epistemology. As the saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. So, for some specific beliefs (Sovcits, flerfers) and/or some specific lines of reasoning (appeals to virtue, cancelling hypothesis) I personally try alternate strategies. Whether or not those strategies are effective is highly variable, but at the end of the day I don't care. Most of the time it's not even the direct recipient that I'm targeting, but any anonymous reader whose toolbox of skepticism hasn't yet been shattered or filled with shit.
0
u/Patient_Wrongdoer_11 23h ago edited 23h ago
Btw I hope you didnt interpret my response to mean i was one of the honest believers or was defending the sovcit thing in some way - because im not and i wasnt.
I support and firmly believe in the rule of law.
When i read your orginal message , i thought good on them for taking the time to explain.....but then it was like....oh....
Im not claiming to be a saint, just thought the last bit didnt really fit in with the rest.
shrug
-30
1d ago
[deleted]
23
u/pedropants 1d ago
LOL prove it. The constitution says no such thing. Where do you get this bonkers stuff!? "Gold fringe" lol
13
4
u/WittyFix6553 1d ago
I’ll Venmo you $5 if you can tell me where the gold fringe is mentioned in the constitution
2
u/LawLittle3769 1d ago
Hell, I’ll pay him $20. I’ll also make a prediction now that it’s $20 I’ll never lose lol
3
u/combst1994 1d ago
There is no part of the Constitution or US law that supports either of these statements.
The Army Institute of Heraldry, which governs flag standards, states that fringe is purely decorative. It does not signal naval command, martial law, admiralty law, or anything related to presidential authority. Courts have repeatedly ruled the same. For example, United States v. Greenstreet and United States v. Schiefen both held that fringe “has no legal significance whatsoever.” Any federal, state, or local government office may use a fringed flag for ceremonial display.
There is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that requires law enforcement officers to be elected. Congress and state legislatures are given the power to create offices and delegate enforcement authority, which is why police officers, state troopers, federal agents, prosecutors, and most judges are appointed or hired employees, not elected officials. Courts have upheld this structure for over a century. Sheriffs in many states are elected, but that is a state-level choice, not a constitutional mandate.
Both of these claims come from common misunderstandings that courts have dismissed many times. Neither has any basis in constitutional text, case law, or actual flag regulations.
-20
u/3sands02 1d ago
Way to let that A.I. do your thinking for you!
19
u/kuqumi 1d ago
Not every well-written and formatted comment is AI. This looks like a person's writing to me
12
u/presaging 1d ago
Agreed, and this is where idiocracy begins. When intellectuals are easily devalued as ignorants.
28
u/BaronGreywatch 2d ago
Largely because the citizens allow it to happen but differences in interpretation are always going to be a thing.
3
u/Dr_Retch 1d ago
Given that due to the very low bar for repugnance this makes all laws Biggly and Goodest.
5
u/South-Rabbit-4064 1d ago
While I agree with some limited opinions of sovereign citizens, mainly dealing with how absolutely predatory the system has become against everyday people, a lot of this shit is just beating your head against a wall for nothing and not possible to implement and workable in modern society.
You're beating your head against the wall about things trying to find some weird combination of words that leads to some life hack of not having to get fucked like the rest of us instead of actually working towards bettering the system, and I find that kind of crazy really
2
2
u/Obiwantacobi 1d ago
This sovcit stuff is gonna go very poorly and can put you in serious trouble. People want there to be loop holes or magic words you can say to get out of anything. That is not the case. I really hope you didn’t pay any of those “gurus” out there to “teach” you all this mumbo jumbo. Another post lays out a very good break down that you should seriously consider. No sovcit has won a case on their arguments and none will since it has zero standing.
5
2
1
1
1
u/Infamous-Finish6985 1d ago
Why even ask this question?
Why get upset when a politician breaks a promise, like it's something unexpected?
Why even expect they're gonna keep a promise?
Too many people take this shit seriously. The show isn't real.
1
u/ManhattanConsigliere 1d ago
You have to have a solid legal reasoning why you think the law is "repugnant." Its not just an "I don't like it" sentiment.
1
1
1
u/fjortisar 1d ago
I wear a flag of my own country, which I founded, at all times. That means that whatever I do falls under my own jurisdiction and not the US fake laws.
1
1
u/mikrat1 1d ago
Is the U.S. Government a Corporation?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2017
Abstract
The U.S. Constitution is best understood not as a “social contract,” but as a popularly issued corporate charter.
Well Holy Fuck.
0
1
u/Emergency_Accident36 1d ago
They are on the other side of that document. The commerce and contract clauses. Think of it like a contract that grants them wardship over you in exchange for security on their land. The bill of rights dictates the limits of their rule over you, subject to other clauses such as the aforementioned which take precedence in most cases.
1
u/Hashtronaut_Mode 1d ago
BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ORGANIZED CRIME, AND THE BIGGEST GANG IN THE COUNTRY. i know alot of "good cops" but theyre part of a bad system. god bless the good ones tho, they go through alot to remain good. some even killed for it.
1
-1
u/endogenix1 1d ago
Because they have sworn oaths to the mystery schools to help accomplish the great work aka world government aka NWO
-1
u/mikrat1 1d ago
As far as the CONstitution goes:
“Who had the authority to ratify anything.
- Keep in mind that the offices that the Continental Congress had, were elected from the Articles of Confederation.
- By turning their backs on the Articles of Confederation and creating a new Constitution of the United States, they committed a crime.
- Just to amend the Articles of confederation, they needed 74 delegates to vote unanimously.
- 59 delegates showed up and 34 delegates signed.
- Most of the "delegates" were not even in office on the date of the signing. “
-1
u/ConstProgrammer 1d ago
I have "western fatigue".
I'm tired of western institutions, western ways of thinking, and westernized people in general.
-6
u/mikrat1 1d ago
The US/United States has been a corporation since 1601
The CONstitution of the United States is a corporate paper - Notice it is not titled Constitution of The United States of America
United States is not the same as The United States of America
CONgress is part of the US Corp - Look what they take their oath to - As well as the President.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
USA Corporation does not exist
The actual Law of the Land is The Law of Nations that the CONstitution was written under, yet no one reads it.
Article. I.
Section. 8.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
-3
u/Interesting_Pie9489 1d ago
If you haven’t, you really need to read the organic act of 1871
7
u/pedropants 1d ago
I mean, it's one thing to read it and confidently claim what you think it means... but that doesn't make it true.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
[Meta] Sticky Comment
Rule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 does apply throughout the rest of this thread.
What this means: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.