Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag?

An unfortunate character trait of some political dissidents is when they assume that their interpretation of what the government says is flawlessly correct. When presented with evidence showing a different interpretation (usually, the government’s own ruling on the matter in question), these same dissidents throw a hissy fit and then declare that anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be an undercover government agent. These dissidents, who also incorrectly portray themselves as “common law advocates,” should just stop spewing misinformation like it’s going out of style.

 

 

Just like the Freemen-on-the-Land, sovereign citizens must believe in the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth in order for their toolbox of shenanigans to seem credible. Besides the fact that even the label “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron, the author proselytizes about the alleged fraud the government conducts against the body politic:

 

“What most people don’t realize is that the birth certificates are considered by the governments to be title to the body of the individual whose name is on it, a contract with implied status: State property. The SS# is an account set up to manage money borrowed using the birth certificate as collateral, the implication is that you are liable for the repayment of the debt. Another way to look at it is as if the Birth Certificate is the equivalent to a business license (an artificial person) which can make no claim for human rights. Why does your baby need a certificate of registration and a debt management account?”

 

Oh, crap, not this shit about the birth certificate being a financial security again. Alright, at the risk of sounding like a broken record player, I’ll ask these same types of questions yet again…where is the source citation from the government’s own literature that an individual citizen’s birth certificate is prima facie evidence of also being a monetarily valuable financial security? Where is the proof that a Social Security number is evidence of a debt management program using the birth certificate as collateral? I’d be more happy to take a look at any source citations from, say, the United States Code, United States Supreme Court decisions, or Congressional statutes since they are reliable sources from the government’s own side; if you can’t justify these “explanations” without referring to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is enforced by the state governments anyway, then I am left to assume that you don’t even understand the basic principal of dual federalism.

Despite their refusal to bear the burden of proof for the claims they make, it is pretty typical for sovereign citizens to roll over you like a steamroller by continuing on with their “explanation” of how things allegedly work. Methods such as Acceptance for Value (A4V) could only work if the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth was actually true:

 

“The fictional UNITED STATES Corporation still exists on paper as a commercial enterprise with immense debt to foreign bankers. As a matter of fact U.S. Inc. has been a corporation floundering in and out of bankruptcy since 1871 when congress went bankrupt from the civil war. The United States were incorporated to borrow money from English bankers who proposed the offer to control American lawmakers.”

 

Sovereign citizens need to subjectively believe in a “corporate government” because that’s the only way they could even try and somehow invoke the UCC. Without the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth, the applicability of the UCC would automatically be rendered null and void. But simple cogent reasoning like that doesn’t stop them:

 

“The UNITED STATES corporation now uses your birth certificate, filed as a registered security with the United States Department of Commerce as collateral to secure credit from the world bank; England’s private bank, this making you liable for the national debt. Each ‘strawman‘ birth certificate is considered to be a fictitious person, a second-class citizen, a corporation “Vessel of the United States” that was voluntarily applied for by the parents and created by the Birth Registrar of the State, another corporation ‘Vessel of the United States,’ for the purpose of securing the national debt.”

 

Here is the origin of the “STRAWMAN” theory; it is little more than an application of the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth to the birth certificate itself. Put another way, the “STRAWMAN” myth establishes the fallacious reasoning that led to the rise of the A4V method. An even simpler way for me to explain this train of fallacies is with the following chain:

 

“corporate UNITED STATES” myth → “STRAWMAN” hypothesis → A4V experiment

 

As you can no doubt tell, A4V was doomed before anybody even bothered to try it because it ultimately relied on a hypothesis, which itself was flawed because it relied upon Patriot mythology. Imitating Robert Menard, Veronica Chapman, and Mary Croft, J.M. reiterates the same old tired “ALL CAPITAL LETTERS” argument:

 

“Where the name appears in all caps, FIRST MIDDLE LAST, as on the Birth Certificate or driver’s license, it can be considered an artificial person and public like WAL-MART.”

 

For the umpteenth time, I will repeat my concerns here…where is the evidence that when your legal name is written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, this shows that an artificial person is attached to you, and because of this, you are therefore suffering from capitis diminutio? The only way I can see how this could even be slightly possible is if the “STRAWMAN” hypothesis were true; even if it were, that still does not satisfactorily demonstrate the harm to oneself as evidenced by capitis diminutio. J.M. even goes so far as to recommend you to write the following above where your sign your name on a traffic ticket:

 

“WITHOUT PREJUDICE” UCC 1-308

First-Middle: Last

 

Here, J.M. takes idiocy to a whole new level. This is magical thinking at perhaps its finest, for it assumes that just by writing some extra words on a legal document, that alone can protect you from the government (this is exacerbated by the fact that this is simply not the case).

I did want to touch on the meaning behind the title of J.M.’s book. As he says:

 

“Let me guarantee you it is not the civilian peacetime flag of the American Union of States, clearly defined in the United States Code at Title 4, section 1, chapter 1. Why? Because they are deviant flags. This is explained as criminal and fraudulent advertisement in TITLE 4 U.S.C.A. CHAPTER 1 SECTION 3. Unfortunately, all government offices display gold-fringed military flags or 3×5 army flags because they are all vessels of the UNITED STATES Corporation. You can’t even buy a Title 4 Flag at WAL-MART, only the 3×5 proportion military flags.”

 

Let’s test that “guarantee,” shall we? Title 4, United States Code, § 1 says:

 

“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.”

 

Keeping in mind that this was written back in 1947 before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union, the flag being described here is essentially Old Glory. Here is a picture of what 4 USC §1 shows:

 

 

And here is what J.M. shows on page 32 of his book:

 

 

Where the hell did J.M. get the idea for his so-called “American ‘Sons of Liberty’ Common-Law Flag?” Title 4 explicitly says horizontal stripes (not vertical) and white stars on a blue field (not blue stars on a white field), which is the antithesis of what is shown on J.M.’s “common law flag.” It’s almost as if he interpreted 4 USC §1 to mean what I could only describe as a photo negative flag as somehow being the “true” flag of America.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, J.M. likes to play fast and loose whenever he quotes Scripture in order to make some arcane political diatribe that isn’t even relevant to what he was trying to argue in the first place. For instance, he prefers to chop entire verses in half, just as he did with Revelation 1:3 and Revelation 13:5, both of which actually say, respectively:

 

“Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”

“And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”

 

Quoting Revelation 1:3 is rather interesting, for it deals with what the Bible says about the end of the world, which is hard to tell exactly what that is, for the Bible says that the end will come “soon” (meaning within a couple thousand years or so), that it will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors, and that the end of the world will come within the lifetime of Jesus’ apostles. Revelation 13:5 reads like something out a psychedelic trip, so I don’t think it’s even worth getting into in any real depth.

Now, to be fair, J.M. does quote some Bible verses in their entirety, but in those cases, I question the content itself, especially with regard to its relevancy to the law. Besides the patent absurdity of Revelation 13:16, J.M. is making an assumption here, particularly in light of the fact that Verichip can’t be implanted in the forehead, although microchips can be implanted in the web of either hand between the thumb and the index finger. I’m not quite sure why J.M. also quotes Revelation 14:11, for, besides the cruelty, injustice, and bigotry strongly implied in this verse as well as the one preceding it, there is very much the issue of interpretation at play here, especially with regards to what the Bible says about burning people to death. Although Luke 11:52 reminds me of what Dick the butcher said in William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, I can’t help but think that Jesus of Nazareth was acting a bit skewed when he uttered his slur, since he was in the middle of blaming all the deaths of the prophets (from Abel to Zacharias) on his generation. Perhaps Luke 11:52 served as inspiration to J.M. when he wrote:

 

“Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fiction claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.”

 

Nevertheless, I am still greatly puzzled by what J.M. was trying to convey here about sovereign citizenship by using these questionable Bible passages.

Unfortunately, Scripture isn’t the only piece of literature that J.M. likes to play fast and loose with, not by a long shot. Here is what J.M. claimed US v. Minker said:

 

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens because of their respect for what appears to be laws are cunningly COERCED into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”

 

Here is what United States v. Minker Falcone actually said:

 

“But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena’s validity by litigation.”

 

See what I mean? The guy has trouble even directly quoting the common law when he meant, I think, to simply just paraphrase it, yet we’re supposed to believe that he is a common law advocate. He also tried to provide a source citation for the UCC several times, but they weren’t precise enough, such as when he attempted to cite UCC 1-103.6; on another occasion, he tried to cite UCC 1-308.7. According to the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Section 1.308:

 

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

 

There is no “UCC 1-308.7,” at least, not here in Texas. The additional part he has of “the making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of wavier or estoppels” isn’t even mentioned in the Texas Business and Commerce Code that I can find. Remember, the UCC is enforced by the 50 state governments, not the federal government, but ah, he screws up citing even at that level of government. J.M. cites a quote as being from 28 USC § 3002(15)(3), despite the fact that there is no such thing, although I think what he meant to write was 28 USC § 3002(15)(C). After incorrectly citing what he was trying to use as his justification for the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth, J.M. goes on to claim that 18 USC § 241, 18 USC § 242, 18 USC § 247, 42 USC § 21, and 42 USC § 1983 somehow magically protect you from the government, but, of course, he neglects to inform his readers as to why that is the case. Not only did he redundantly quote 42 USC § 21 twice, but in his next breath he recommends filming government agents as an evidence gathering method to be used as the basis for a civil lawsuit. To add insult to injury, J.M.’s “Truthful Language Claim” 12 step procedure only works if the claims made by him earlier were actually true. If everything from his terrible citations of the UCC to his misunderstanding of what a Title 4 flag actually is, is wrong, then you’re in for a world of hurt at worst, and the mental ward at best (never mind the whole bloody fingerprint thing, which he literally explains away as a method of associating the DNA with the life the document claims to represent).

I’m starting to think that sovereign citizens are nothing more than reformists, because reformists stubbornly adhere to their failed methods, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Arguably, sovereign citizens have done some good work over the years by inventing some effective counter-interrogation techniques during a police encounter, as well as raising awareness about the natural liberty to travel, but beyond those two very specific topics, the rest of the baggage that the sovereign citizens carry with them (including their very name, as I’ve already explained at length) is, quite honestly, too much to bear. They should not call themselves “common law advocates” because they never actually refer to the common law, preferring instead to incessantly cite the UCC (which is, technically, statutory law). By contrast, state citizens are truly common law advocates because they actually bother to study the case law. I never want to hear again that worn out excuse by the “sovereigns” and “Freemen” alike that because I think their interpretations are completely wrong, that “I need to go do my own research” (especially considering the fact that I question their credibility precisely because I “did my own research”).

As more of an aside, it has been postulated to me in private conversations that the sovereign citizens are wannabe anarchists. At first, I discounted this, since I had assumed from most of their rhetoric that they were simply minarchists, but then I came across what J.M.’s views about government were:

 

“Government is an idea, a fiction, and can only do business as a fiction, with a fiction. This is why they try to shackle you with the fiction birth certificate name and Gregorian date of birth from the moment you breathe.”

 

So, it would appear that my skepticism turned out to be unfounded in this case. Oh, well, you can’t blame me too much for giving the sovereign citizens the benefit of the doubt, can you?

J.M. Sovereign: Godsent’s Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag! The Sovereign Citizen’s Handbook is a worse than useless crock of shit, quite frankly. After having slogged through at least four books written by pro-UCC, anti-common law “common law advocates,” I’m seriously left to wonder whether controlled opposition might very well be at play here. Revealingly, J.M. says the following in his conclusion:

 

“I cannot for think for you. I can only encourage you to take your life into your own hands. Declare your sovereign American civilian status and help your community be networked with the rest of the real America by distributing this book and requesting seminars in your area. There are a lot of good American people out there who will help you and you’ve got to find then! God speed to you! Send us your results so others can learn from your efforts.”

 

It’s not a matter of not being able to think for myself, you little shit…it’s a matter of you having absolutely no concept of what due diligence means! He, like the other “sovereigns” and “Freemen,” just projectile vomit whatever some alleged guru spews out, despite the fact that their so-called methods just simply don’t work. Much like voting, protesting, and writing a letter to the editor, reformism, no matter what form it takes, manipulates your desire for greater personal liberty into a twisted sadomasochistic carousel of misinformation and even disinformation, which ends up doing nothing more notable than going ’round and ’round the Ferris Wheel within the proverbial carnival of the Internet without any foreseeable way off, just the same old ’round and ’round…