Their Secret about the Sovereign Citizen That They Wont Tell You

Their Secret about the “Sovereign Citizen” That They Won’t Tell You

First off; anyone who refers to themselves as a sovereign citizen is falling into a propaganda trap set by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The term sovereign citizen in itself is an oxymoron, because the word sovereign refers to a supreme authority which could also never be a citizen.

Sovereign citizen is an easy label they can slap on anyone who they want to shut down. The sovereign citizen is really just an updated and more sinister-sounding label demonizing Americans by creating a negative catch phrase like they have in the past with terms such as conscientious objector, and conspiracy theorist. This term has been specifically manufactured to label Americans as violent extremists. I don’t know anyone but feds, provocateurs, and lame-stream media who use the term sovereign citizen.

Here’s how it works:

1) Attorney gets posed with questions that could not only damage his reputation if he gives and honest answer to, but also get him in trouble with his boss (the courts and ABA) by revealing the fraud they have perpetrated.

2) Meanwhile there are entities such as the ADL and SPLC that have been using a staged false flag event in 2010 to label and demonize these people who they say are self-proclaimed sovereign citizens when really no one identifies as a sovereign citizen.

3)How the people get identified as sovereign citizens is when that attorney we were talking about before starts using the term to demonize individuals that could potentially cause problems for the entire system and generously applies the label and then people go and google the term and then see all the propaganda by the ADL and SPLC and then associates the wild claims made by the attorney with the targeted dissenters.

4) No one ever stipulates to being a sovereign citizen and I challenge you to find me one person who claims to be one. They simply don’t exist they are a boogeyman invented for the sole purpose of eliminating the threat to their racketeering scam.

Arnold Law is now implying in its latest motion to dismiss that people have been labeling themselves Sovereign Citizens. I want to know EXACTLY who it was who referred to themselves as a sovereign citizen so that I can help them from their confusion. I want names Mike, and I want them now. And if you dont have any names or self-admitted sovereign citizens then I want you to make a public apology for fabricating information.

I want to know EXACTLY who is out there calling themselves "sovereign citizens".
I want to know EXACTLY who is out there calling themselves sovereign citizens.
Liberal use of the label to demonize those who oppose.
Liberal use of the label to demonize those who oppose.

Have a look at the following articles to learn more and see these tactics in action by a high profile attorney:

A simple request to Arnold Law Firm

The True Story About The Burns, Oregon Peaceful Protest

A Unique Arraignment Case Study

A Slave From The Cradle To The Grave

What should “YOU” do when you get an offer from Government? Send a ‘Notice of Mistake’!

Letter I received from the Oregon Dept of Justice requiring information…
Letter I received from the Oregon Dept of Justice requiring information…

I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true. You must rebut the presumptions! For example; in the correspondence that I recently received from the Oregon Department of Justice, a reference was made to “You” several times within the letter. “You” is an interesting word, you see it can apply to plural individuals. When I say “Hey you!” in a room full of people, who exactly am I talking to? I could be talking to one of them, or all of them, so I am simply asking for this to be clarified and at the same time removing some key presumptions.

I am sending them back a certified notice of mistake.
I am sending them back a certified notice of mistake.

The following is the full text of the certified notice I am sending to the Attorney General for Oregon, Ellen F Rosenblum along with the original correspondence from one of her thugs, I don’t mess with lower officers… I go to straight to the boss.
Text of the notice I am sending:

USPS Certified Mail #7012 1010 0001 4118 6661

Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096

Dear Ellen F Rosenblum:

We, thank Ms Rosenblum for her correspondence which we received 05-09-2013.

There appears to be a mistake as although the included correspondence was sent to JAMES T GOODBAUDY the correspondence implies that an ORDER/JUDGEMENT was against “You”. Would Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity kindly confirm who “You” is, and/or forward this correspondence to You.

In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as a party in this matter. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT or Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me.


WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America corporation?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?

As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

Notice: Failure by Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.

AUTHORIZED BY____________________________ SEAL _________ _


Hopefully they get back to me soon! They have ten days before their claims are satisfied in full. I will keep you posted, but in the meantime:

It is out of my hands now! I will let you know what happens!

And it's off to the wizard!
And its off to the wizard!

Update: January 2016, this entire account has disappeared from my credit report.

Notice of Mistake  I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true. You must rebut the presumptions!


The "paper terrorist" might not be who you think it is...

Have you ever heard the term paper terrorist in reference to people who file paperwork in a case?

Well, think about this is there anyone who you can think of who, under the threat of violence or imprisonment, goes around and hands out pieces of paper to people saying that they owe him money (essentially extorting and robbing them using the threat of violence if you don’t comply with the robbery/extortion)?

Yes that is right folks, the REAL PAPER TERRORISTS are the ones who write the citations. THEY originate the cases that we are trying to defend ourselves from, and then when we try to file paperwork (never using the threat of violence by the way) we get called a TERRORIST? Are you effing kidding me?

Please correct them if you hear this term being used to describe someone trying to defend themselves. They have victimized us enough.

What To Do When The Towing Company Steals Your Car

What do you do when the towing company steals your car?

I am sure we have all been concerned about getting our personal property stolen by the police, what do you do when your car is stolen? The following letter is one of the first steps you can take to get your property back.

Here is a link to the Letter to Towing Company  ORIGINAL WORD DOCUMENT that you can edit as you like.

This letter includes Oregon Statute quotations, but all states have similar statutes.



Re:  Seizure without warrant of a 2014, JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE, with manufacturer’s serial no. 1LSD4ME2WEX0U812, and has not been returned, after having asked you for it verbally twice.

To Whom This May Concern:


On Thursday January 17 around 12:30 A.M.  your company without warrant  stole my automobile, a forest green JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE. This Automobile was un-encumbered and has NO liens of any kind, and is the private property of john doe.  I did not give you or anyone else permission to take the car.  You took the property only on the say so of someone from the City Police Department whom also did not have a WARRANT.

I am demanding you return said identified property to the following location within 72 hours receipt:

432 River Avenue

City, State Zip

It can be delivered to any uncovered parking space in the parking lot of the complex


If the property has not been returned within the time specified herein, A Plus Towing Company agrees that each of the following is true, correct and not misleading:

  1. That A Plus Towing has obtained the property without consent of its owner:  john doe;

Oregon Revised Statutes  §164.135 states the following:


Unauthorized use of a vehicle  (1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:

(a)    The person takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses another’s vehicle, boat or aircraft without consent of the owner;

  1. A Plus Evil Towing is committing Theft by Extorion in requiring that I pay them money for the return of my private property which was taken from me by them.

O.R.S 164.075¹ Theft by extortion

(1) A person commits theft by extortion when the person compels or induces another to deliver property to the person or to a third person by instilling in the other a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or a third person will in the future:

(a) Cause physical injury to some person;

(b) Cause damage to property;

(c) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;

(d) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;

(e) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;

(f) Cause or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some persons business, except that such conduct is not considered extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;

(g) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to anothers legal claim or defense;

(h) Use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(i) Inflict any other harm that would not benefit the actor.

(2) Theft by extortion is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §127; 1987 c.158 §27; 2007 c.71 §48]

  1. A Plus Towing at the time of the incident conspired after the fact with a corporation known as City of Eugene Oregon and its Police Department which carjacked the above property at the time of the incident.
  2. A Plus Towing has obtained the property without a warrant issued from a court of competent jurisdiction, in violation of the Fourth Article in Amendment, and the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 9:
  3. Private property was seized by Municipal Corporation, and one of its employees, without warrant, and said employee directed A Plus to take the property, though no accident, or witnesses witnessed any crimes.
  4. A Plus Towing conspired after the fact and refused to return john doe’s property after he asked for A Plus Towing to return the property, but was refused.
  5. Contrary to law, A Plus Towing is also keeping and using the said property and will not return it unless a  ransom price of ______ per day  has been paid in advance, the sum totaling $_____________.
  6. A Plus Towing has without warrant and without due process, deprived john doe of his property, and refuses to return it after demands for the return have been made.
  7. A Plus Towing is committing extortion by requiring that I pay them a fee for the return of my private property.
  1. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.—



  1. A Plus Towing agrees that if it has not returned the property described above within 72 hours to the above mentioned location, it agrees and consents to the following, without reservations, and without
  2. A Plus is renting the vehicle for $200.00 per day.
  3. A Plus shall obtain exact replacement value insurance, with john doe as beneficiary
  4. A Plus shall pay for each day’s use, including keeping the property without using such.
  5. A Plus shall pay a weekly rental fee, the sum $1400.00 within three days receipt of bill presented.
  6. A Plus shall pay a late fee that is sixty percent of the daily rental fee, the sum $_______ as an additional daily surcharge if all sums due are not paid within seventy two (72) hours receipt of demand.
  7. A Plus shall not damage, abuse, remove any equipment, accessories, nor shall it install any new equipment or accessories, but shall take the property to have maintenance done at least two times per month.
  8. A Plus shall pay a Forty-five thousand dollar surcharge, in the event that A Plus, or its successors, assigns, or agents sell the property at auction or otherwise.
  9. In the event of an auction, in addition to the surcharge mentioned at paragraph 7 above, A Plus shall give all money given in consideration received, to john doe, and shall not make any deductions for the cost of the auction or sale itself, nor shall it charge any daily storage fee, impound fee, release fee, or any other sum, nor require john doe to perform in any way.
  10. A Plus consents that john doe, in the event that any arrearages occur, including but not limited to delinquency in payment, that doe may file a UCC financing statement against all of A Plus’s property, vehicles, tools, bank accounts, and maintain the financing statement until all satisfaction has been fully paid; and that such financing statement shall never be deemed bogus.
  11. A Plus consents that in the event of arrearages or delinquency occur, that doe, or his agents, assigns may take possession of any property owned, held, including property held in trust by its owners, and may trade, bargain or sell any equipment to offset any debts that may occur in the future.
  12. A Plus states that any equipment, property traded, sold or bargained, that the value of the property shall be deemed whatever john doe deems said property to be worth, and never shall be its replacement value.
  13. A Plus, its parent, subsidiary, successors, assigns and agents shall forever strictly comply with each of the provisions agreed to herein, as covenants.

In the event that no satisfaction occurs, either for the return of property, A Plus grants john doe a general power of attorney to conduct an involuntary bankruptcy, lawsuit, in order to settle all matters related herein described, and additionally to receive all sums due and mentioned herein to doe;  said power of attorney shall not expire, or be cancelable/terminated until full satisfaction has been made.

Further, the parties sayeth naught.

This ________ day  of  January  A.D.  two  thousand  sixteen.



john doe.

No Drivers License, No Plates, Not Guilty


The following article was published in 2010 by a news station out of Omaha, Nebraska so I believe that it is biased against everyone who does not do what the rest of the sheep do. With that being said; they would have you believe that everyone loses every time, but it is simply not true.

We all need to take a moral evaluation of everything we do in our lives, and go with the SPIRIT of the law over LETTER of the law (I think I need to write another article about that in itself). Anyway here is the article

Screencapture from WOWT 6 Omaha website headlines 10/20/2010
Screencapture from WOWT 6 Omaha website headlines 10/20/2010

A routine traffic ticket caused a Papillion man to draw a line in the legal sand. Its a challenge of certain licensing laws that resulted in a surprising outcome in court.

“Motorist does not have a license plate on his vehicle,” said La Vista Police Chief Bob Lausten. The driver of a car didn’t have plates or a license and he refuses to get either one.

“This is an unlawful stop, I believe,” said Ernest Kubr on the cruiser cam video.

“You dont have license plates on your vehicle, sir,” said the officer.

“Am I required to?” asked Kubr. “It’s my property.”

Kubr surrendered his license last year and didnt plate the car he purchased in September. “I pay all of the lawful taxes Im obliged to pay, but a right cannot be licensed, taxed or registered.”

Kubr has been ticketed three times in three months, twice by La Vista police. “My concern is obviously somebody who is not following the laws of Nebraska,” said Chief Lausten. “Were enforcing the law, were doing what were supposed to do and we expect the motorists to do the same.”

Evidence in Sarpy County Court showed Kubr doesnt have car registration or a driver’s license, but Judge Robert Wester found him not guilty of both charges.

The prosecutor said it has to do with state records on Kubrs address, listed as “in care of, though he has a home in Papillion. “I believe we had enough evidence to show hes a resident of Nebraska, but the judge disagreed, so based on that is what really made the difference,” said Assistant Sarpy County Attorney Casey Taylor.

Even though hes been pulled over and issued tickets three times, Kubr has no plans to license his car or get a drivers license. “I dont want to be harassed anymore, I want to be left alone and exert my right to travel and use my property as long as I dont infringe on the rights of others.”

Though found not guilty, Kubr hasn’t got off without paying for not having a license or registration. Both times hes been stopped in La Vista, police towed the car and he paid the bill.

“You are stealing my car,” said Kubr on the cruiser cam video.

“Im not stealing your car, sir,” said the officer.

“Yes, you are.”

Though found not guilty in his first trial, theres no double jeopardy for driving without plates or a license again. “He keeps violating the law, were going to keep stopping and keep ticketing like wed do with anyone else,” said Chief Lausten.

Because of his interpretation of constitutional rights, Kubr’s travels will likely take him through county court again and again. His scheduled court date for the latest ticket is January 12th and he vows to again challenge Nebraska laws requiring a license and auto registration. He does carry proof of insurance and a video camera on his dash for when hes pulled over.

Judge Wester, who found him not guilty the first time around, did not return a call for an explanation.

The following article at the time of publishing is located at: