"THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" by Snoop4truth

"THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX"
The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN "INDIVIDUAL" IS "SOVEREIGN" and that "WE the PEOPLE", COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth). According to this hoax, the INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereign") is not bound by laws made by representatives that "We the People" (the REAL "sovereign") ELECT to make them. But, none of this is so.
In nations ruled by a King or Queen, the word "SOVEREIGN" means the King or Queen. But, in nations ruled by THE PEOPLE, the word "SOVEREIGN" means ALL OF THE PEOPLE, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, not the single "INDIVIDUAL" AS A TINY PART OF THE WHOLE.
This means that here in the United States, "We the People", COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE legally stand in the shoes of the Kings and Queens of yesteryear and we COLLECTIVELY rule ourselves, But here in the United States, no single INDIVIDUAL among us is "SOVEREIGN" and no single INDIVIDUAL among us stands in the shoes of the Kings or Queens of yesteryear and no single INDIVIDUAL can rule anything.
FOR PROOF, SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO POST #108 HERE. https://www.waccobb.net/for...
The mistaken belief that the "INDIVIDUAL" is "SOVEREIGN" is the result of amateur legal theorists being unable to read. They are unable to distinguish between SINGULAR and PLURAL terms. When they read the phrase, "We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms), they mistakenly interpret it as the phrase, "I the Person" (both of which are SINGULAR terms). But, this is not so. The phrase, "We the People" refers to ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not the single INDIVIDUAL speaking individually as a tiny part of the whole.
Likewise, when amateur legal theorists read the phrase, "consent of the governed", they mistakenly think that it refers to a single INDIVIDUAL person (AS IF ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE NATION IS "GOVERNED" BY THE GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE"). This is why they mistakenly think that every single INDIVIDUAL in the nation must INDIVIDUALLY "CONSENT" to the law, to the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and to the jurisdiction of the courts in order for them to govern that INDIVIDUAL. But, this is not so.
"We the People" (both of which are PLURAL terms) "CONSENT" to our government COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, not INDIVIDUALLY outside the election process.
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, "THE PEOPLE (a plural term) exercise THEIR (also a plural term) SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH THEIR (also a plural term) VOTES.."
DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN":
[url=http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx#:~:text="... a determinate person,obedience to any human superior."]http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx#:~:text=%22...%20a%20determinate%20person,obedience%20to%20any%20human%20superior.%22[/url]
DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGNTY"
[url=http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereignty.aspx#:~:text=Sovereignty Definition%3A,the reach of international law]http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereignty.aspx#:~:text=Sovereignty%20Definition%3A,the%20reach%20of%20international%20law[/url].
Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS ALSO A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
[url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed#:~:text=explore dictionary-,consent of the governed,democracy%2C and John Locke]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed#:~:text=explore%20dictionary-,consent%20of%20the%20governed,democracy%2C%20and%20John%20Locke[/url].)

U.S. LAW ON WHETHER ALL OF THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, ARE "SOVEREIGN" OR WHETHER THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN
1. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/.... This case reads, "The term`citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law [when MONARCHS ruled supreme], and the change of phrase [from "subject" to "citizen"] has entirely resulted from the change [in the form] of government [from a "MONARCHY" to a "REPUBLICAN" form of government]. THE SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN [a "MONARCH"] TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" [CLICK HERE] http://www.duhaime.org/Lega... https://dictionary.cambridg...].
TRANSLATION: SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A "MONARCH") TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A SOVEREIGN MONARCH IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE SOVEREIGN "STATE.'"
2. Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a contrast between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]." (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.
3). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NEITHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
4). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIDUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ."TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
5). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE UNTIED STATES AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE "SOVEREIGN"). In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
6). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "EVERY STATE IN THE UNION in every instance where ITS SOVEREIGNTY has NOT been delegated to THE UNITED STATES, [IS]... COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN, AS THE UNITED STATES ARE [SOVEREIGN] IN RESPECT TO THE POWERS SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]. THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]: EACH STATE IN THE UNION IS SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS RESERVED. " (at the 14th paragraph at about 15% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
7). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/... (HOLDING THAT STATES ARE SOVEREIGN).The court wrote, "Under the Constitution, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY [means "EXCEPT"] AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY [under Article 1, Section 8] SUBTRACT FROM THEIR AUTHORITY [their SOVEREIGNTY]."  (at the 16th paragraph at about 30% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
8). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/.... (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 1, Section 8]." (at the 1st paragraph in "Section B" at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
9). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/.... In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" refer ONLY to "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, "The words 'people [a PLURAL term] of the United States' and 'citizens' [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of "We the People" is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY], They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term]," and every [INDIVIDUAL] citizen is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY]." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").
ABOUT OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO PRETEND TO KNOW THE LAW (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when attempting to represent others) .
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77+ consecutive cases in a row) , click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row) , click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES(who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016