Sovereign Citizen and magical diplomatic immunity is all bullshit

Frankly, Davis, I'm horrified by your gullibility.
This defense is treated as rabid nonsense by courts of law

It originates in the Christian Identity movement

It's stupid nonsense. The fact that you would take claims this transparently ridiculous at face value.....

You seem to have gained the info you were spouting at me and Matt the other day from this website, not from a book.
Good fucking God, what a deranged, anecdotal load of crap. Show me solid proof of someone who used this to get out of a ticket or something and I'll cut my arm off with a feather.

That you would bandy this nonsense around with a straight face....I wish I'd had the courage to tell you as you were speaking about it that it sounded doubtful to me, but I had no desire to create dissent on a pleasant evening. That look on my face wasn't sponge-like absorption, by the way. It was open-mouthed horror at the spectacle of intellectual suicide.

(braces for shitstorm)

EDIT:

I swear to fuck if you try to say you were kidding to try to save face I'll fucking go nuts with anger

I'M WAAAAAAAAITING

Blake. You know what. Don't ever fucking talk to me again. Don't look at me again. And don't think you can come back over to my house. If instead of raising your concerns with me in a way NORMAL people do, you'd rather link completely unrelated sites, throw ad hominems, and accuse me of gullibility, then I'd just rather not be your friend. You are a complete and total douchebag. The fact that you'd rather insult me than address the issue speaks volumes for you.

The first two websites you linked to have nothing to do with what I told you OR Uniform Commercial Code. The third site you linked to looked like it was made by a third grader on heroine, so of fucking course I didn't get it from there.

You want your "solid proof"? I fucking cited it a million goddamn times to you. UCC 1-308, formerly UCC 1-207. Where did I get the information? Cornell University. Look under Article I, General Provisions. Tell you what. You don't get off easy you fuckface. Read the entire Uniform Commercial Code like I did. I was up for 5 hours of my 13 hour excursion just verifying my data. So you can piss right the fuck off.

You seem to be hung up on this traffic court bullshit. Why don't you read up on these:
Traffic Court
Statutory Law
Admirality Law specifically its jurisdiction

My information I gave you was about the application of Statutory Law but not Common Law to state cases. As was found in Swift v. Tyson 1842. But in 1938, that case was overruled as was a century of federal court cases when it was ruled in Erie RR v. Tompkins that there is no general federal Common Law. Only Statutory Law.

Tell you what. If you read all of that and don't know what any of it means, it's your fucking problem and you can eat a dick. You don't want to learn from me, fine. You're on your goddamn own.

" (IRS summons and court subpoena are not "securities" or commercial documents within the terms of UCC) US v. Stoecklin (MD Fla 1994) 848 F.Supp 1521; (calling various official and court documents "counterfeit") Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; ditto US v. Stoecklin (MD Fla 1994) 848 F.Supp 1521; similarly (calling the IRS notice of deficiency a "counterfeit security") Olsen v. CIR (10/3/95) TC Memo 1995-471; ditto Baker v. CIR (10/16/95) TC Memo 1995-495 aff’d (5th Cir 1996) 98 F3d 1338; (signing papers with a notation about "UCC 1-207 without prejudice" or something similar) State v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 544 NW2d 158; ditto (writing that on Form W-4 and other tax forms) US v. Clark (5th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 485 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 227; ditto Black v. CIR (11/27/95) TC Memo 1995-560; ditto Reese v. CIR (6/5/95) TC Memo 1995-244; similarly US v. McVeigh (D Colo 1996) 940 F.Supp 1541 (this ritual evidently practiced by people associated with the Oklahoma bombing conspirators); similarly Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para 50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); (persistently returning court papers with "Refused for fraud" scrawled across them, and not responding to orders justified court order that henceforth perp is not allowed to file any lawsuits against any govt agency or employee without prior permission of the court) Citizen in party, Klimek v. Sigmund (ED Penn unpub 12/3/97); similarly perp fined $5000 to be divided among the govt and some financial institutions he had included in his suit. R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98);"

"citations to UCC are meaningless; "the complaint filed by the [govt] is not a negotiable instrument and the UCC is inapplicable.") US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157; similarly ("plaintiff's reliance on the UCC as a basis for her "refusal for cause" [response to all court papers] is misplaced. A court order is simply not commercial paper subject to the [UCC] provision cited by plaintiff.") Ventura v. Krugielki (WD Mich unpub 4/14/94) suit dismissed (WD Mich unpub 1/21/97); US v. Kettler (10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); R. Jones v. Watson (ND Ohio unpub 2/4/97); Greenstreet v. Heiskell (Tex.App 1997) 940 SW2d 831 reh.den 960 SW2d 713; Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; Smith v. Bullard (SD WV unpub 7/1/96) 78 AFTR2d 5811; "

I was rude. I'm sorry.

But you are still wrong.

I see the words "services" and "trade" here a lot. Also, on the wikipedia page.

trolls trolling trolls.