Sovereign Citizen in Cedar Hills

Archive of old discussions

Moderator: Daniel Zappala

Forum rules
This is an archive of past discussions on a wide variety of topics. This forum is now locked to disable any new threads. Please use the other forums for current discussions.
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Fri May 09, 2014 10:23 am


Thanks for spelling out the timeline. I have been waiting to see when Sovereign Citizen Cromar's house flipping antics would be brought to light. I have looked at the records and everything you say is 100% true and recorded in the public record (mostly by Ken Cromar) for all the world to see.

Citizen Cromar has been deeply involved in activities that have landed others in jail. Curt Crosby's brother, Barry, was lucky to only lose his house. The same will be true for Citizen Cromar. Losing your house is hard, but not as hard as losing your house and going to jail.

GNAT, as you show, Citizen Cromar has been relying on convicted felons who are dedicated to fraud and deception, even after being caught. If Citizen Cromar relies on and follows convicted felons, he risks following their path straight to jail.

Thanks again, and I reaffirm, your timeline is based on verified records and is very accurate. The documents evidencing this timeline literally amount to hundreds of pages (thanks for the nice summary). The details in those hundreds of pages, the details placed there by Citizen Cromar, are damning. They expose him as a hateful hater.

Truth Be Told, Citizen Cromar his operating on borrowed time.
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:15 pm

Postby Molly » Sat May 10, 2014 3:20 pm

Gnat or Truth...does this book translated from German as Man of Straw have anything to do with the concept of the sovereign citizen straw man...published in1918 it had some influence on politics at the time, i.e. Nazi politics?
Just remember that you are free to disagree with me or just ignore me. I don't have a problem with either. Just don't egg my house.
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Tue May 13, 2014 1:39 pm


I am not sure about the book or if sovereigns use the term Strawman in a similar way (i.e. unthinking loyalty to authoritative government). I am more familiar with the more common use of the term, as follows:

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

In this sense, Citizen Cromar routinely misapplies the law and facts to create strawman arguments, consistently accusing those he opposes of logical fallacies and wrongdoing, which are nothing more than his own intentional misrepresentations.

For example, under the open records laws in Utah, all cities are allowed to charge the actual costs of gathering and copying requested records, and if the estimated cost exceeds $50, to ask for a prepayment before starting to fulfill the request. Citizen Cromar makes huge records request where the actual costs of gathering and copying are many hundreds of dollars, then he refuses to pay the estimated costs so the City does not start to fulfill his request until he pays. He then intentionally lies and says that the City is withholding records. This falsified argument is a "STRAWMAN" argument. I say the lie is intentional, because he is fully aware of his obligation to prepay, before the City has any duty to begin to fulfill his request, but he still says the City is intentionally withholding records, when the reality is that he intentionally does not pay -- apparently so he can falsely accuse the City of withholding records.

In short, yes Citizen Cromar routinely applies Strawman arguments in the traditional sense. I am not familiar enough with the book to know if that is also part of his ploy.
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Tue May 13, 2014 2:05 pm

Just a follow up to GNAT's timeline.

Citizen Cromar had a traditional loan and mortgage on his home until about 1996, when the traditional mortgage with a local bank was released and a new trust in the name of Aran Islands Holdings was imposed.

Aran Islands Holdings is an interesting name for a business. The Aran Islands are a group of three island off the west coast of Ireland at the mouth of Galway Bay. The largest is 9 miles long. The inhabitants largely speak Gaelic, but are fluent in Irish English as well. There are about 1,200 inhabitants. The main commerce is tourism. They can be reached by small plane or several ferries.

Citizen Cromar spent some time living in Ireland. Next time you see him, ask if he enjoyed his visit to the Aran Islands when living in Ireland.
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:15 pm

Postby Molly » Tue May 13, 2014 5:50 pm

Truth or gnat...I don't see how signing the title to property in Utah County over to a trustee company overseas protects it from leins. Cromar has leins on his property. Does it just make it more difficult to collect? Or did he just get con'd into some invalid scheme?

Also, it looks to me like it was only there for '96 to '98. Is it still there?
Just remember that you are free to disagree with me or just ignore me. I don't have a problem with either. Just don't egg my house.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Fri May 16, 2014 10:59 am

The Pure Trust Scam

Pure Trust scams have been around for a long time and even though they are illegal, they are still being promoted today. The promoters of the Pure Trust scams are still finding people who are falling for their sales pitch - hook, line, and sinker.

Here in Utah, David Orr and Lanny White’s investment and tax scam was selling a variety of trusts, one of them being the Pure Trust. They targeted “vulnerable communities” as discussed in earlier posts such as patriots, elderly, and the highly religious. These men used their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a key selling point. Basically, they were selling the idea they could be trusted because they shared the same LDS faith and beliefs and they would never con someone. The proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing".

Education is key in keeping these “vulnerable communities” from getting involved with these scams. Enforcement of laws on those promoting these scams and holding those participating in the scams accountable are also important.

So let’s start with getting educated on the Pure Trust scam and Molly this education should address some of your questions in your most recent post. My research into Orr and White's trust scam tells me that Ken Cromar didn't set his trust up in the Aran Islands - he just used it as the name of his trust. Just wait until you see the other names of the trusts these guys used and how they commingled assets - very illegal and very disturbing. Be warned - these people are just con men.

One of the best articles out there on this topic was authored by Robert L. Sommers a tax attorney who created the website “The Tax Prophet”. Sommers knows how to break down his legal expertise and is able to explain the Pure Trust scam in language that we can all understand. Here is the link to the article followed by the actual article itself. Let the education continue. ... mony1.html


I created my Tax Prophet website ( in March 1995, to educate the general public regarding U.S. tax laws. I discuss the tax consequences of specific transactions and how taxpayers may reduce their tax liabilities.

Although most e-mail I receive involves questions about the Internal Revenue Code, I also hear from a persistently vocal minority, one claiming that our tax laws are unconstitutional and that it is possible to substantially reduce, if not completely eliminate, taxes via a "pure trust." In response to this nonsense, I created the Tax and Trust Scam Bulletin Board ( as a resource for people being pressured by these phony trust promoters, but who at that time had no source of opposing information.

This Bulletin Board is a public service designed to combat consumer fraud perpetrated against the public. Admittedly, the most likely participants of these phony trusts are anti-government rebels who deserve little sympathy for their culpable tax evasion. However, trust scam artists prey equally on unsuspecting seniors, the uneducated wealthy, and many citizens who would love to enjoy what they believe are legal ways to save on their taxes. Who among us wouldn't? The goal of the Bulletin Board is not to convince hard-core tax protestors or anti-government types that they are wrong; rather, it is to provide those who are being duped with badly needed accurate and current information.

How a Trust Scam Functions

2.1 The Decades-Old Pure Trust Scam
The “pure trust” has been around since the late 1950s. They are called “pure trusts” because the trust is allegedly based on the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of contract, rather than on specific state or federal laws.

One of the earliest decisions involving pure trusts was the 1968 California case People vs. Lynam, 261 Cal App 2d 490 (1968), in which the court ruled that the pure trust was a fraud under California law. In an earlier case, People ex. Rel. Mosk v Lynam, 253 Cal App 2d 959 (1967), a California Appellate Court held that advertising the benefits of a pure trust to avoid income taxes amounted to false and deceptive advertising practices.

The court enjoined the defendants from promoting “pure trust” plans for managing personal assets.

The defendant employed the identical arguments that “pure trust” hucksters are still promoting today. According to the Mosk v Lynam court:

The statements to the effect that no state can regulate pure trusts because such trusts are guaranteed by the United States Constitution are untrue and misleading.
Since beneficial certificates are issued by the trust, and since the trust may operate as a substitute for a voluntary association or corporation, the trust would be subject to regulation by the state. [citation omitted].

With reference to the purported "guarantee" by the United States Constitution, Lynam [the defendant] stated in his deposition that immunity from state regulation was guaranteed by that clause of the United States Constitution which protects contracts from abrogation. No contract contrary to public policy, however, is protected by that clause.
The statements to the effect that income accruing to the trust is not taxable to the trust (as an entity) are untrue and misleading.

Lack of Expertise
The “masterminds” of these trusts appear to have no formal education in either tax law or accounting. Typically, they don’t provide any legal analysis or case law in support of their assertions or discuss the counter-arguments to their positions. It is just hard sell all the way. They rely on the barest technical compliance with trust law, which of course, can still be illegal: When challenging trust arrangements, the IRS and courts scrutinize the substance, not merely the form, of all transactions.

2.3 Distinguishing a Phony Trust from A Legitimate Estate Planning Trust
What makes this particular scam popular is that legal, properly-drafted revocable trusts offer a variety of estate planning opportunities and can eliminate probate fees and costs, and minimize estate taxes. However, they never save the taxpayer income taxes -- in any way. These promoters deliberately confuse legitimate trusts with fraudulent ones, claiming that prominent families (the Rockefellers, Kennedys or Fords) have established family trusts to minimize inheritance taxes, protect assets and maximize privacy. These legal trusts, however, are usually funded by gifts or sales of property; or the person creating the trust remains liable for all income and estate taxes under the grantor trust rules (generally IRC Sections 671-679).

In contrast, every taxpayer caught using these trusts has been charged with all taxes owing, plus interest, and usually penalties.

2.4 Why These Trusts Do Not Work
The IRS and courts look to the substance of the transaction, not its form. When all is said and done, if a taxpayer enjoys the benefits of his property, he is taxed as the owner. It does not matter that he placed his property into a trust with his great aunt as trustee and created reams of paperwork attempting to hide his ownership.

The courts and IRS look to the results, not the methods. These tax scam artists invariably fail to address the critical issue: After the paper shuffle, who winds up with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property? If it is the taxpayer, then all the intermediate documentation is ignored and the taxpayer is responsible for the tax consequences.

2.5 How to Spot a Fraudulent Trust
Scam trust packages use names such as “Pure Trust,” “Unincorporated Business Organization” (UBO), “Common Law Trust,” "Constitutional Trust," “Complex Trust” and “Pure Equity Trust.” Employing fear tactics, these hucksters suggest that taxpayers are probably paying more than their fair share of taxes; that without their seminar instruction, taxpayers may lose all their assets as a result of litigation or medical expenses; or that their heirs will have to sell assets to pay for inheritance taxes. Often, they obtain a minister or other cleric as a client, then work on the rest of the church members. Star athletes or other public figures are sometimes present to lend an aura of excitement and respectability to the pitch.

Trust scam hucksters claim their seminars and instructional materials teach taxpayers how to transfer their business, investments and residence assets into trusts to protect against the claims of creditors. They may also “guarantee” that their program will virtually eliminate taxation of self-employment earnings and significantly reduce their income tax liability, usually by deducting inflated expenses between trusts or deducting personal expenses as “business” expenses. Among their claims, they often promise that taxpayers can protect their assets from liabilities, deduct their children’s tuition as “scholarships” and eliminate estate taxes at death. But here is the real prize: these trusts allow clients to maintain control of assets transferred to the trust, unlike legal irrevocable trusts that require an independent trustee.

2.6 An Illustration
Sham trust promoters often design their bogus documents as a three-trust scam. Here is how the arrangement supposedly works (see the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit “A”):
Trust One (Business Trust) contains business assets (allegedly transferred to this trust on a tax-free basis).When the business trust generates income, it is subject to self-employment taxes.

Trust Two (Siphon Trust) is created to lease or sell equipment, services and inventory to the business trust at inflated prices, thereby siphoning-off the income generated in the business trust which would otherwise be subject to self-employment taxes.

Trust Three (Personal Residence Trust).All income generated by the siphon trust (and any remaining income in the business trust) is then distributed to the personal residence trust which contains the taxpayer’s personal residence. The trust uses an inflated depreciation deduction for the residence to offset part of the income distributed to it. The taxpayer now lives tax-free in the residence as a “caretaker.” As part of the caretaker’s package, the trust pays for medical and educational expenses, then deducts those payments as business expenses to further offset income.

Of course, none of this is remotely legal. The tax code does not permit tax-free transfers of property in exchange for trust units. A residence may not be depreciated unless it is used in legitimate rental activity that produces rental income; taxpayers never can claim they are caretakers of their own residences; and any personal deductions for medical or educational expenses must meet stringent code requirements.

Courts typically dismiss these trusts as bogus since they are devoid of economic substance and are entirely an income tax-avoidance device. Also, if the taxpayer directly or indirectly controls the trust, courts might apply “grantor trust” provisions to tax the income directly to the taxpayer, in any event.

The Typical Tax-Scam Promoter

3.1 Viewing the Tax Law with "Tunnel Vision"
Trust scam promoters appear to have no appreciation of the number of judicial doctrines that stress substance over form. For instance, one of their favorite claims is that the pure trust is a constitutional trust created under the freedom to contract (Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution).If the freedom to contract had no restrictions, then presumably it would be legal to hire a contract killer. Of course, the freedom to contract does not apply when a contract is contrary to public policy.

Likewise, trust scam promoters often rely on IRS Revenue Rulings which govern specific transactions. But these Revenue Rulings do not apply to sham transactions or to a series of transactions that can be collapsed under the "step-transaction" doctrine. The step transaction doctrine holds that a transaction involving a series of pre-arranged and inter-related steps, which are undertaken for tax purposes and lack economic substance, may be analyzed as a whole. The focus is on the end result — the intermediate steps within the transaction may be ignored.

3.2 Tax Protesters vs. Pure Trust Scam Artists
Traditionally, the authors and promoters of illegal tax protester schemes asserted the U.S. government is not legitimate and the Internal Revenue Code is illegal or unconstitutional as applied to them. Noted for a militia-type attitude, their original tactics employed a philosophy of “untaxing” yourself (renouncing the right to receive government benefits such as social security) and thus becoming a “sovereign citizen” who was beyond the reach of the U.S. tax system. Thus, IRS would look for the obvious: Those who did not file or pay their income taxes.

The pure trust scam artists, however, have taken a different tack: They claim taxes are legal, and for, say, $20,000 they’ll help you reduce or eliminate your tax burden, by setting up your “pure trust.” The documents usually make no logical sense but are just a mishmash of trust concepts combined with anti-tax rhetoric. Under the traditional pure trust approach, tax returns are filed, but income disappears through a series of phony deductions. The scam artists believed that IRS would not audit trust tax returns. This approach became obsolete when IRS released Notice 97-24, announcing a nationwide crackdown on bogus trusts.

Recently, the tax protestors have discovered the virtues of selling the pure trust. They have modified their position and now explain that a person no longer must “untax” himself, but rather that the pure trust be formed in a “foreign” jurisdiction, while the individual remains eligible to receive government benefits – It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” approach.

But because forming a legitimate foreign trust is expensive, not to mention the fact that the clients would lose control of their assets, these savvy tax protestors have devised a theory — based on a frivolous interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code — that classifies all 50 states as “foreign” to the U.S. government. And here is the bonus: The “foreign” trust could reside in the same state as the taxpayer!

Thus, by creating a trust that is classified as “foreign” under U.S. tax laws, the income received would be “foreign source,” therefore, the trust would not file tax returns.

Distributions made to the taxpayer would be considered tax-free foreign-source gifts or foreign-earned income that, supposedly, would be excludable under IRC Sec. 911. Of course, none of this actually works under our tax laws.

In this way, the tax protestors devised a scheme to hide the income and existence of these trusts from IRS yet still operate openly in the U.S. as a “foreign trust” which is allegedly not subject to tax reporting or filing requirements.

*Testimony Before The Senate Finance Committee - Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Cons TRUST SCAMS ON THE WEB - Robert L. Sommers, Attorney at Law, Thursday, April 5, 2001


The Tax Prophet. (1995-2014). TRUST SCAMS ON THE WEB by Robert L. Sommers. Retrieved from ... mony1.html
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Fri May 16, 2014 3:56 pm

The IRS tax liens are against Paul K. Cromar. Those will attach to any property he owns and as GNAT shows, the IRS is effective at blowing through shams to try and shield assets and property from IRS tax liens.

The question with Citizen Cromar is whether he has merely been duped, or whether he advances the shams himself. He plainly does all he can to advance the shams. At this point, he must know that the shams are illegal because they sent David J. Orr and Lanny White, his trustees, to jail.

Let me contrast Citizen Cromar to Curt Crosby. During the 90s, Curt Crosby had several IRS tax liens filed against him. You should recall that Curt's brother, Barry, was a business associate of Mr. David J. Orr and Mr. Lanny White. But, it appears that after the criminal investigations into Mr. Orr and Mr. White got underway, that both Barry Crosby and his brother Curt did their best to resolve their tax liens. Barry has since had another large tax lien filed against him. I am unclear about whether that was resolved or what. But, it appears that Curt has resolved things. Based on Curt's behavior, I would conclude that he was duped.

On the other hand, Citizen Cromar has behaved very differently than Curt Crosby. Citizen Cromar has denied any tax liability, at every turn. Citizen Cromar has filed very hateful documents in court. Citizen Cromar is not acting like someone who is trying to do right and simply made a mistake. Instead, he continues his refusal to pay taxes. He denies he owes any federal taxes. He denies any tax liability to the State of Utah. He continues to perpetrate tax hoaxes and he promotes them. Even after David J. Orr and Lanny White went to jail, Citizen Cromar turned to convicted felon Robert Wray for assistance, and Sworn Sovereign Robert G. Wray has provided plenty of information to Citizen Cromar that claims the IRS is a fraud, etc. My conclusion is that Citizen Cromar is not an innocent dupe. My conclusion is that Citizen Cromar intentionally and knowingly violates the law and continues the same schemes and scams that landed Mr. Orr and Mr. White and Mr. Wray in jail.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Tue May 27, 2014 10:55 am

Cliven Bundy – A Sovereign Citizen Story

The Cliven Bundy story caught my attentions over six weeks ago when the cattle rancher started appearing in the media due to the controversy surrounding Bundy, his cattle, and the BLM. As I have read about Bundy and watched the media reports, I have recognized several sovereign citizen indicators in Bundy’s language and behaviors. In the following weeks, I have become more convinced that Cliven Bundy and some of his supporters are heavily influenced by the sovereign citizen movement. Some of the supporters are probably good hearted Patriots, but I believe some supporters are fringe extremists who are dangerous and are looking for a violent confrontation with authority – whether it be police or the BLM.

Here are just a few of the indicators that I have noticed over the weeks:

First, Cliven Bundy states that he does not recognize the Federal Government. Is he preaching sedition? Cliven Bundy is a member of the LDS Church. I wonder if he has read anything Dallin H. Oaks has written regarding sovereign citizens and sedition. If Bundy thinks he is helping the LDS Church then he is ill-informed. I believe he is just hastening the work of persecution towards the LDS Church.

Next, Bundy states that the “sheriff’ is the one with the ultimate authority, not the police or BLM. Bundy has also called for militia groups to assist him in his efforts to fight the government. This has Posse Comitatus written all over it. In the old American West, sheriffs would often call in the “posse” who were armed citizens. This “posse” would assist the Sheriff in apprehending a fugitive, or provide additional support for defense against violent criminals. Amongst the sovereign citizens and militia groups, this doctrine is still alive today and in full effect at the Bundy Ranch . One minor detail – the sheriff didn’t call the militia – but rather Bundy and his supporters did. Does Bundy know that Dallin H. Oaks has also warned against the calling for private armies?

In support of the “posse” - did anyone see Sheriff Richard Mack show up at the Bundy stand-off? When Sheriff Mack talks – the “posse” listens! Mack did an interview where he stated they had women and children on the front lines of the stand-off and if anyone was going to get shot it would be those women and children. Then that bloody scene would be shown all over the world for all to see the murder of innocent civilians by rogue government agents. Mack later posted an apology, stating it wasn’t his idea to put the women and children on the front line, but it was the women and children’s idea – WHAT? This all reminded me of that video from an earlier post where the sovereign citizens promote anarchy. They want to record all the wrongdoings and abuse of the government or police in an effort to collapse the government and its laws through anarchy.

Check out Sheriff Mack on The Daily Show with John Stewart in this clip called “Apocalypse Cow”. The segment has a commercial in the middle so don’t stop when the commercial comes – wait to see the end of the story. There are important points that will be made.

By the way Sheriff Mack is also LDS – isn’t that comforting? Maybe they think they are the ones that are going to save the Constitution that hangs by a thread. Anyway, I have much more to say about the Posse Comitatus in upcoming posts.

Then who can forget Harry Reid - it's as if a trifecta of Mormons have come together over this one instance. So who's right?

Finally, Bundy has not paid grazing fees for over 20 years and is defiant and refuses to cooperate with court orders that he not have his cattle grazing on Federal Lands. He has lost several times in court and has been repeatedly warned and has been given the opportunity to have his fees reduced if he would just obey the laws. Bundy still refuses to cooperate. He now owes over $1,000,000 for this show of defiance.

This type of behavior is typical and is promoted amongst sovereign citizens, tax defiers, and anti-government types. Bundy often states in interviews, “They told me to say …”. Well who is “they”? Who is instructing Bundy to say anything? Some of these group are just Patriots, but you will never convince me that radical extremists looking to become violent haven’t been drawn to Bunkerville, Nevada. Some of the militia groups have been identified and these folks are definitely looking for trouble and even violence.

For those who have no knowledge regarding the sovereign citizen movement these indicators demonstrated by in Cliven Bundy and his supporters might go completely undetected. These same people may be the ones calling Bundy a hero. But to those of us who are learning about the sovereign citizen movement it is clear – Cliven Bundy has been influenced by the sovereign citizen movement.

One of the most educated people in our country regarding the sovereign citizen movement is JJ MacNab. She recently wrote a series in Forbes regarding Cliven Bundy. If anyone can hone in on sovereign citizen indicators - it is JJ MacNab. She is one of the foremost experts in our country on the subject.

The following posts will be MacNab’s series and analysis of the situation. A good read and will provide more education regarding sovereign citizens.
Last edited by gnat on Tue May 27, 2014 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Tue May 27, 2014 11:05 am

Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 1 by JJ MacNab, article printed in Forbes, April 30, 2014.

Retreived from ... ff-part-1/

While the national frenzy surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s viral commentary on race has finally faded, the situation in Bunkerville, Nevada is as incendiary as ever. Bundy, his family, and many of his remaining supporters have not backed down on their promise to use lethal force to prevent the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from removing trespassing livestock from federal land.

According to the U.S. Capitol Police, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has received death threats at his home from Bundy supporters. Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev, has reported that local residents of the area have complained that armed militia men have set up checkpoints on some of the roads, demanding proof of residency before allowing cars to pass. Supporters have posted photos and identifying information about BLM employees involved in the April 12th suspended roundup on various social networking pages, and in at least one case they made explicit threats against an innocent bystander, simply because his pickup truck was photographed in town.

View of Bunkerville, Nevada View of Bunkerville, Nevada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While most observers and commentators have focused on Bundy’s recent statements on race, something far more problematic drives the standoff. Bundy, his family, and many of his supporters are part of the modern day Sovereign Movement, a loosely-knit group that subscribes to a complex system of bizarre legal theories. They believe that the current U.S. Government is an illegitimate sham, and, in the most extreme situations, they are willing to resort to violence when the courts and government agents don’t agree with their schemes.

While many pundits have assumed that greed drives Bundy’s stand, he has spent decades absorbing “patriot” legal theories, piecing together quotes, codes, and court case citations that appear to lead him to the conclusion he desires, while carefully ignoring those that don’t. To Bundy and his supporters, the fight isn’t just about money; it’s about a deep-seated belief that they are right, and the rest of the nation is just too brainwashed or stupid to understand.

Lately, Bundy’s leadership has taken on a religious tone. He claims that he has had a revelation from God that his supporters are to disarm the BLM and National Park Service, and to tear down the toll booth at Lake Mead.

So far, the nation has laughed at the rancher for more than a week; now it’s time to focus on how to resolve the standoff without the loss of life.

From folk hero to political embarrassment

When Cliven Bundy’s armed conflict with the US Government started in early April, a trio of media outlets rushed to support his cause. RT (formerly known as Russia Today, the television and Internet news outlet funded by the Russian government) quickly released a report that expressed nothing but contempt for the US government in their handling of the trespass cattle. Fox News, led by Sean Hannity, romanticized the standoff on national television, dedicating almost five hours to the story in the first two weeks. The Drudge Report stirred up right-wing anger with hyperbolic titles like “Heavily-Armed Feds Surround Nevada Ranch.”

200 Armed Federal Agents Surround Farm…
Forcibly Removing Cattle…
‘Range War’…
Governor Calls Fed Actions ‘Intimidation’…
Blasts ‘First Amendment Area’…
Family: ‘Wake up America…they are taking everything from us’…
Source: The Drudge Report 4/9/14

Made aware of the situation in Nevada through this coverage, hundreds of supporters flocked to the ranch. Politicians rallied to the cause, adding their support to the growing number of ranchers, militia men, and alternative press who count the patriot and sovereign community as their listeners and viewers.

None of the media or politicians who backed Bundy’s stand had apparently looked into the rancher’s background or bizarre legal theories, even though the Sovereign clues were there long before Bundy’s story went viral. As a result, millions of potential supporters saw these reports, thousands decided to add their voices and money to Bundy’s cause, and hundreds put themselves in harm’s way, all without understanding the facts of the situation. For many, it was the first time they had ever been exposed to sovereign beliefs, and now, in various social networking groups, they are parroting the same legal “research” used by the Sovereign, Tax Protester, Christian Patriot, Posse Comitatus, and Christian Identity groups of the last fifty years.

The problem, however, is not one-sided. Early in the standoff, U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) further inflamed the situation in Bunkerville when he spoke at an event in Las Vegas:

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists. I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism … Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States. The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees. And he doesn’t follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority … They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” Source: Fox News, April 17, 2014

In 2010, the FBI issued a report that did indeed identify the Sovereign Citizen movement as a domestic terrorism threat, but, even if the label turns out to be accurate, Reid shouldn’t have said it. Stirring up the supporters’ anger did not help diffuse a violent standoff.

When the New York Times broke the story about Bundy’s commentary on race, the story and video of his speech went viral. Hundreds of media outlets began covering the event, mocking the conservative politicians who had pledged their support to Bundy, ridiculing the hillbilly farmer and his militia supporters, writing satirical songs and cartoons to memorialize his words, all of which has effectively added a laugh track to a dangerous and inflammable situation in Nevada. There has been an undeniable glee in the articles that followed.

Salon, for example, has now published 37 articles on Bundy in two weeks.

“If anyone can graze on that land free of charge then there shouldn’t be any problem with a bunch of freaks camping out for a few days. It’s all about freedom, right? And so we graduate from protest to farce … these poor conservatives, despite being part of the largest youth cult in history, never had a day of sheer, joyful fun in their sad, unimaginative lives. The Bundy Barbeque and Tea Party Woodstocks are the best time they’ve ever had. Pity them. This is their moment and it’s just kind of sad.” Source: Salon, April 23, 2014

Putting Bundy on a national platform in an effort to increase ratings, gain votes, or embarrass political opponents is clearly irresponsible, and if the standoff does turn violent, it may result in the deaths of Americans, both those supporting Bundy at his ranch, and those BLM employees who still need to enforce a valid federal court order for the removal of the cattle.

Fewer supporters, but those that remain are determined

Since the New York Times article, Cliven Bundy has worked hard to repair his image among his supporters. Many who found his racial stereotyping offensive left the ranch, or simply fell quiet within the social networking groups without actually unsubscribing. Others, including a handful of African American supporters, have recorded videos protesting the nation’s characterization of Bundy as a racist. Most of the politicians and media figures who originally labeled Bundy an American hero, quickly walked back their support and disavowed his stance on racial issues. The paramilitary arm of the standoff – the various militias who walked away from their jobs and families to protect Bundy and his cattle by killing any federal agents who try to enforce the court order – has recently splintered, thanks to infighting and paranoia, a not-uncommon problem with a group that trades heavily in conspiracy theories.

A core group remains. Realistically, these are the same people that would have remained interested in the standoff on a long term basis anyway.

This group includes some ranchers who have either faced similar issues with federal land agencies or are worried that they too will one day have to fold their business if the government closes more land to grazing. Some are members of the patriot / sovereign online community. Some are militia men and women, eager to aim their weapons against a government they consider tyrannical. All are angry at the current administration, powerless to change what they perceive as an overreaching government, and desperate to find a solution buried in the legal issues surrounding the Bundy case.

Many more probably would have faded from view had the recent flurry of articles not engaged in such heavy-handed stereotyping, painting supporters as ignorant, hillbilly hicks while simultaneously condemning Bundy for engaging in the same game.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Tue May 27, 2014 11:11 am

Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 2 by JJ MacNab, article printed in Forbes, May 2, 2014.

Retrieved from ... ff-part-2/

The Shot Heard Round the World

From a distance, the Sovereign Movement appears to be little more than series of scams and schemes, wrapped in patriotic terms. Based on recent articles, blogs, and comments, many people have assumed that Cliven Bundy is just a greedy man looking for a way to line his pockets on the government’s dime.

For most Sovereigns, however, the American Dream is not defined as a comfortable home and happy family. Their goals are substantially more ambitious and hopelessly futile; they want to return the United States to a romanticized version of the 18th century, and fervently believe that they have the numbers and resources to achieve this fictional goal.

To do this, they need to get rid of the U.S. government. They start by filing thousands of meaningless legal documents in federal, state, and local courts. When that doesn’t work, some preach violent insurrection. They call it the Second American Revolution, the VBR (Very Bloody Revolution), or, most recently, the American Spring.

Militias Are On [sic] Route to Help Cliven Bundy – Face Off With Feds: Will this be the Start of the 2nd American Revolution? Source: Freedom Outpost, April 10, 2014

The movement believes with an almost religious conviction that the majority of Americans agree with these goals and objectives, but that apathy and nefarious, shadowy forces in the government and press prevent any large-scale uprising from happening.

Waco, TX Waco, TX. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Therefore, to rally the American public into action, the Sovereign leaders need a big event, a shot heard round the world, a catalyst to cause citizens to aim their guns at government employees and for the U.S. military troops to abandon their posts and join the revolution. Over the years, the armed standoff has been by far the most effective technique in gaining publicity and new recruits to the cause, and the movement doesn’t seem to care that the press they attract paints them as violent fools, rather than patriots.

The history of the patriot standoff goes back decades. Gordon Kahl in the 1980s, the Montana Freemen in the 1990s, Edward and Elaine Brown in the 2000s, all played David to the federal government’s Goliath. A sovereign named John Joe Gray has even been holed up in his Texas compound now for fourteen years.

Obviously, none of these events triggered a revolution. The early 1990s government standoffs involving the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas, and the family of white separatist Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, were different. In these confrontations, women and children died, and the modern militia movement grew rapidly in response. These events were also what prompted Timothy McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh had hoped that by blowing up a building filled with federal employees, he could make his place in history as the next Patrick Henry.

Women and children first

From the very beginning of the Bunkerville standoff, the Bundy family, their supporters, and the early media who helped them recruit newcomers, all attempted to characterize this conflict as the next Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Therefore, when the armed Bundy crowd engaged the Bureau of Land Management on April 12th, they used children as human shields.

Reporter Michael Flynn: We saw some younger people down there that looked like they might have been children. Do you think that was wise to have those kids down there? Do you think it could have turned dangerous?

Bundy Sniper: That might have been the only thing that kept them from getting gassed. They threatened to shoot chemicals into that crowd.

Reporter: Do you think that it was good to have the kids down there then?

Bundy Sniper: Absolutely.

Reporter: Do you think this could potentially have turned violent?

Bundy Supporter: Absolutely.

Source: Southern Utah Independent Video Interview of Bundy Supporter/Sniper Eric Parker, April 12, 2014

In a second video, a female supporter responded to similar questions:

“You know what, if they’re in the line of fire then bad on the sheriff … I think it’s fine … It’s (a dangerous situation) because the government has made it such … it’s got to stop somewhere.” Source: Southern Utah Independent, Video of Standoff, April 12, 2014

Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack caused a stir when he suggested on the national news that dead women be used as shields just to add shock value to the situation once shots were fired.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” Source: Fox News, April 14, 2014

Mack later clarified his remarks by saying that the women had volunteered to become human shields.

Word blender arguments

While the patriot community has gone through many changes over the last fifty years, the legal techniques remain the same: 1) establish a goal, 2) cobble together unrelated and out-of-context legal quotes to seem to ensure that you achieve that goal, 3) when these fail, blame government corruption or a massive conspiracy, and 4) punish those that got in your way with liens, threats, and in extreme cases, violence.

In the early 1990s, Cliven Bundy, along with several other ranchers located in western states, picked a fight with the U.S. government in an effort to have their states claim ownership of all federal land within state borders. They twisted the meaning of laws, relied on one part of the U.S. Constitution while ignoring another, used out of context quotes from a Supreme Court case that didn’t apply, and fabricated a rule about ancestral grazing rights.

These tactics failed in court every time, and the federal judges involved ordered that the trespass cattle be removed from the land. Bundy has repeatedly threatened those involved with liens and implied that he would resort to violence if the cattle roundup continued.

“Should you take part in any confiscation of the above property, Mr. Bundy and his heirs, et al. will institute an action against all parties, individually, who take or have taken an active role in said confiscation. There will be liens upon any and all property and accounts.” Bundy website, April 12, 2012

For years, Bundy had been threatening to “do whatever it takes to protect his property,” to engage the government in a “range war” and when peaceful protesting didn’t work to “take it more physical.”

Mrs. Bundy has threatened federal agents as well.

“I’ve got a shotgun. It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion.” Source: Las Vegas Sun, September 23, 2013

Cliven Bundy, like so many in the movement, is inconsistent in how he characterizes his relationship with the federal government. He told ABC News, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,” yet he said, “I abide by almost zero federal laws” to the Las Vegas Sun. When directly pressed on his tax compliance, he responded, “Yes, I pay federal income taxes. I have paid into Medicare and Social Security as well.”

The inconsistency continues in the statements made by Bundy and his family members on his “ancestral grazing rights.” Details of these declarations will be further explored in the third part of this series.

Historically ignorant and tone deaf

Most Bundy supporters seem to be unaware of the history of the movement they have joined. On the various social networking support pages, they post a seemingly endless stream of Nazi-based propaganda photos.

In one picture, for example, they have cut-and-pasted the photographs of at least fourteen BLM and police employees tasked with protecting the hired hands rounding up the cattle. Above the picture montage is the caption: “The faces of those who just followed orders at the Bundy Ranch. The Next Nuremburg?” So far, more than 4,600 people have shared this photo on Facebook.

These supporters apparently don’t know that the Sovereign movement was started in the mid-1960s by a group of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Southern California. Nestled into the various sovereign legal theories are subtle references to everything from holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracies to slavery apologist myths. Considering that African Americans have been joining the movement in large numbers for the last three years, this lack of historical context is troubling.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Tue May 27, 2014 11:19 am

Context Matters: The Cliven Bundy Standoff -- Part 3 by JJ MacNab, article printed in Forbes, May 6, 2014.

Retrieved from ... ff-part-3/

On Friday, three of Cliven Bundy’s sons, two of his sisters, and seventeen supporters filed Criminal Reports with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office in Las Vegas, Nevada. Their list of complaints was extensive:

Men blocking access to public land
Men blocking public roads
Men harassing people for taking photos
Men impersonating Police officers
Men claiming to be a police officer and refusing to show valid identification
Men threatening to use Tasers
Men threatening to fire upon unarmed civilians
Men using attack dogs
Men pointing weapons

We believe that the BLM men who pointed guns at over 1,000 people on April 12th near the I-15 freeway south of Mesquite committed a criminal act and that the Clark County Sheriffs [sic] office should be required to investigate. Source: Bundy Website, May 1, 2014

Despite the obvious irony of these complaints being levied by a group that dresses in paramilitary uniforms, sets up illegal checkpoints on public roads, aims their many weapons at both law enforcement and civilian contractors, and threatens to bomb and kill people at local businesses, there’s something even more sinister behind these Criminal Reports.

There is an implied “or else” in these demands to the local Sheriff to do their bidding.

Cliven Bundy orders the Sheriff to disarm the Bureau of Land Management. Militia members stand guard. April 12, 2014 (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jason Bean)

The County Sheriff

For years, Cliven Bundy has been demanding that Clark County Sheriff Gillespie protect his cattle from the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of the Interior agency tasked with managing federal land. Like most Sovereigns, Bundy believes that the County Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the entire country, with unlimited authority that trumps that of any federal agent, elected official, local police officer, or perceived enemy.

Bundy routinely invokes the U.S. Constitution when making these claims. The phrases “We the People” from the Preamble, and “life, liberty, and property” from the 14th Amendment are usually present.

“Where our problem is is right here at home. I wonder where our Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie’s been … He is the man that has constitutional jurisdiction and authority, he has policing power here in Clark County, Nevada, and he has arresting power, so we elected him and we pay him, what do we pay him to do? Don’t we pay him to protect our life, liberty and property?” Source: Moapa Valley Town Hall Meeting, April 9, 2014

The 14th Amendment, which guaranteed state and federal citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War, holds a special place in Sovereign mythology. They claim that the Amendment covertly introduced a new type of citizen – the U.S. citizen – when only state citizenship existed prior to the Amendment. The federal government then tricked Americans into this structure by having them enter into contracts such as licenses, permits, birth certificates, and so on. Traces of these theories can be found sprinkled throughout Bundy’s statements.

“I have no contract with the federal government so this whole thing shouldn’t be controlled by a federal court.” Source: Moapa Valley Progress, March 19, 2014

In the hours after the BLM walked away from their efforts to round up the trespass cattle on April 12th, Bundy ordered Sheriff Gillespie to confront the federal agents:

“Sheriff, this is what We the People are asking this morning. Disarm the Park Service at Lake Mead and Red Rock Park and all other parks where the federal government claims they have jurisdiction over … We want those arms delivered right here under these flags in one hour.” Source: KLAS-TV Las Vegas, April 15, 2014

By Monday, Bundy announced that the order applied to all sheriffs around the country. They were all tasked with disarming federal agents. A few days later, he expressed disappointment that his sheriff didn’t comply.

“My Clark County Sheriff, Doug Gillespie, didn’t finish his job. What the mandate from We the People was, Saturday, was to disarm the Park Service and BLM. And when he didn’t do that, and his time was up, then we the people took it into our hands and had to do the sheriff’s job and the governor of Nevada’s job.” Source: Politico, April 14, 2014

Bundy has apparently passed this belief system about the role of the County Sheriff on to his sons:

“Will our sheriff keep his oath this time and use his lawful forces to stop them? Or will the people be left to their own protection?” Ammon Bundy. Source: KSNV-TV NBC, May 2, 2014

“We want the sheriff to go after this criminally. I mean, this is America and we’re not supposed to have foreign forces at us. Number one, these were people that were impersonating an officer to begin with. The County Sheriff is the only person that We the People have allowed to have policing power.” Ryan Bundy. Source: KSNV-TV NBC, May 2, 2014

When questioned about what happens when the Sheriff doesn’t obey, Bundy’s response was vague. “We the People have asked the 3,100 sheriffs across the nation to disarm the bureaucrats. They form the biggest army in the world.” And if they don’t do it? “You have seen during the past weeks what happens when the Sheriff doesn’t comply.”

Without the Sovereign context, all of the various statements from the Bundy family might appear relatively benign. However, based on the history of the movement, Bundy appears to have initiated a process that could end badly for Sheriff Gillespie and the agents of the BLM.

Posse Comitatus

According to the Sovereign concept of Posse Comitatus (“power of the county”), the Sheriff is the highest law enforcement official in the country. It is his job to rein in the illegitimate federal and state governments and protect the citizenry from their tyranny.

If the Sheriff refuses to do this, the Sovereigns assemble a “common law court,” assign themselves as jurors, put him on trial for treason for failing to uphold the Constitution as they read it, and sentence him to death.

“He shall be removed by the Posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon hung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law.” Source: Posse Blue Book, 1972

The Bundy group may simply ignore the Sheriff once he fails to act on their Criminal Reports. The purpose of the forms was to give him notice that they wanted him to arrest the BLM agents involved in the roundup and disarm other BLM employees. Sovereigns believe this notice gives them the justification to arrest and disarm the agents themselves.

“It is the duty of the Sheriff to protect the local citizens from such unlawful acts. Once he has been advised and refuses to perform his lawful duty in respect to the matter, the Posse Comitatus has the lawful right under natural law to act in the Name of the Sheriff to protect local jurisdiction. Since the Second Amendment to the constitution says ‘. . . . the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. . .’, the local Posse Comitatus has the right to bear arms in the execution of the law, any Act of any legislature or directives issued by the Judiciary or Executive notwithstanding. Arrests may be made. The criminal may be remanded to the custody of the County Sheriff for trial by a Citizen Jury impaneled by the Sheriff from citizens of the local jurisdiction. (NOT by the Courts as is current procedure in most counties and which has no basis under law.)” Source: IDENTITY newsletter Vol. 6 No. 2, 1971

The Posse Comitatus movement was a precursor to the modern Sovereign movement, and vestiges of its legal theories and goals have been passed from generation to generation since the 1970s, particularly within farming communities. It was started in the early 1970s in Southern California by a white supremacist reverend named William Potter Gale, who fabricated these legal theories and published them in his IDENTITY newsletter.

Shortly after, a retired dry-cleaning equipment repair man named Henry Beach plagiarized the language, and sold “Posse Comitatus” charter packages. A third man, James Wickstrom, brought the materials and ideas to the farming communities who were, at the time, angry at government and desperate to save their farms from foreclosure during the farming crisis of the early 1980s.

Over the decades, the strong racist and Anti-Semitic language that permeated the original Posse materials was bleached away, but the flawed underlying legal theories persisted.

The Myth of the County Sheriff Today

Recently, William Potter Gale’s theory about the County Sheriff has re-emerged primarily through two groups: the Oathkeepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

The former group claims that they have 40,000 members made up of current and retired sheriffs, police officers, and soldiers. This was one of the armed groups that supported the Bundy family during the standoff, but they were kicked off the Ranch by a competing militia last week. The CSPOA is a smaller, more focused group, made up of almost 500 County Sheriffs who believe that they have the power and authority outlined in William Potter Gale’s Posse Comitatus. Retired Sheriff Richard Mack, the man who talked about using women as a human shield, is an active leader in both groups.

Several Sheriffs from the around the nation either pledged their support to Bundy’s cause or showed up in Bunkerville armed and in uniform, to stand with him against the federal government.

Attorney Larry Klayman promotes the use of common law juries, has expressed his support for the Bundy standoff, and has wrapped his call for violent insurrection in patriotic terms:

“Before these government goons do come back, let this message go forth. Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid and the gutless Republican establishment leaders in Congress who roll over to and further this continued government tyranny, We the People have now risen up and we intend to remove you legally from office. This country belongs to us, not you. This land is our land! And, we will fight you will all legal means, including exercising our legitimate Second Amendment rights of self-defense, to end your tyranny and restore freedom to our shores!” Source: World Net Daily, April 18, 2014

This rebirth of Posse Comitatus legal theories among law enforcement is extremely problematic in ways that vastly exceed the current situation in Bunkerville, Nevada.
100 plus
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

Postby gnat » Tue May 27, 2014 11:25 am

Cliven Bundy's Son Had Run-In With Park Service Two Decades Ago by JJ MacNab, article printed in Forbes, May 9, 2014

This is the fourth in a series of articles.

Retrieved from ... ff-part-4/

Practicing sovereign techniques for decades often takes its toll on a family’s financial, physical, and mental health. Sovereign methods and theories are rarely limited to a single issue, and children brought up by sovereigns have no reason to doubt their parents’ wisdom.

All in the Family

A quick glance at public record documents for Cliven Bundy’s immediate family shows that his ideas have indeed been passed along with serious repercussions. While most of the family does appear to have abided by state and federal laws, at least prior to the standoff, a look at records of some of the closest relatives reveals a surprising number of criminal charges in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

Driving without a license or proof of insurance
Passing a bad check
Failure to appear in court
Criminal contempt
Grand larceny of firearm
Attempted forgery
Violation of probation
Interfering with legal arrest

The following example from 1994 involved Cliven Bundy’s son Ryan, one of the more active family members currently engaging the BLM agents in the standoff.

94-642 – Zion (Utah) – Pursuit and Arrest
On the morning of November 12th, Zion dispatch was given a vehicle and driver description regarding a recent “gas skip” in a neighboring community. Ranger Karen Frauson identified the driver as he entered the park, notified patrol, and requested the standard entrance fee. The driver refused to pay the fee, stating that he did not recognize federal authority, and drove on. Patrol ranger John Patmore stopped the vehicle a short time later. The driver, Ryan C. Bundy of Nevada, refused to identify himself, insisting that the federal government had no right to stop him and had no authority on Utah lands. Bundy drove off just as back-up ranger Ed Dunlavey arrived. The two patrol units began a pursuit of Bundy, who now refused to stop. Bundy continued for a dozen miles to the park’s east entrance, where road spikes were utilized in an attempt to stop him. Bundy was able to drive around the spikes, narrowly missing a Utah Highway Patrol officer in the process. He continued out of the park until stopped by sheriff’s deputies at a roadblock about 21 miles from the point of the initial stop. Bundy was cited for numerous state and federal charges, including fleeing, interference with agency functions and failure to pay required fees. Bundy is a member of a local constitutionalist/”wise use” extremist group which has threatened land management rangers and policies in the past. Source: Frontcountry District Report by David Buccello, District Ranger, 11/13/94

The federal government dismissed their case, but the State of Utah charged him with Failure to Stop at the Command of a Peace Officer, a 3rd degree felony. Bundy entered into a Diversion Agreement, and three years later, the State dismissed the case as part of that agreement. Ryan Bundy did not respond to a request for comment.

This 1994 run-in with the National Park Service might explain Cliven Bundy’s April 12, 2014 demand that the County Sheriff immediately demolish the entrances of National Parks located in Nevada.

“Disarm the Park Service [crowd cheers] at Red Rock Park and all other parks that the federal government claims they have jurisdiction over. Take your county bulldozers … er … loaders and tear down that entrance places where they ticket us and where they injure us and make us citizens pay their fees. You get your county equipment out there and tear those things down this morning.” Source: The Independent Southern Utah, April 14, 2014
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Wed May 28, 2014 11:54 am

On April 9, 2014, I posted an excerpt from a court filing by Citizen Cromar on February 22, 2010, in which he verified to the IRS that he is NOT a U.S. Citizen. The record of this statement was made by Sworn Sovereign Citizen Robert Wray.

This was not the first time Citizen Cromar swore he was not a U.S. Citizen. On August 15, 2006, Citizen Cromar filed a document with the Utah County Recorder as Entry No. 105533:2006 entitled AFFIDAVIT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT BY PAUL K. CROMAR. In it he says the following:

"Paul K. Cromar does not now and never has been a resident of the United States . . . Paul K. Cromar is not now, nor has ever been, a resident in a state over which the US government has jurisdiction. . . Paul K. Cromar is not now, and never has been a resident of a federal enclave . . . Paul K. Cromar has never knowingly or willingly volunteered into the jurisdiction of the United States . . . and is not willingly or knowingly prepared to do so at this time. Paul K. Cromar, declares this statement to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2006 /s/Paul K. Cromar.

In addition to the BIG LIE about his name, which thankfully Citizen Cromar does not repeat in this document, Citizen Cromar is intent on rehearsing another BIG LIE, that despite demanding all of the rights of a U.S. Citizen, he is not a U.S. Citizen. According to Sovereign Citizen Cromar, someone must knowingly and willingly assent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government before they are beholden to it. WOWSERS!!! I guess that means that every illegal alien is not bound by federal laws. AWESOME!!! Under Citizen Cromar's thinking illegal aliens can run drugs in the U.S. and are not subject to its jurisdiction or laws because they never consented to it. BEAUTIFUL!!! and of course, total POPPYCOCK!!!!!

When Citizen Cromar's sovereign ideas are held up to the light of any reason, they are quickly seen as inconsistent and idiotic. For example, I am sure that Citizen Cromar pays sales taxes when he buys things from stores, but when it comes to other taxes he claims he doesn't owe taxes, because he isn't subject to the government's jurisdiction. In other words, he pays when it gets him what he wants, but doesn't when he doesn't want to pay. How wonderful to anoint yourself emperor who gets to decide what taxes to pay or not.

TRUTH BE TOLD, Citizen Cromar seems willing to believe all sorts of lies, if it means he gets to dishonestly avoid taxes.
Truth Be Told
100 plus
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

Postby Truth Be Told » Fri May 30, 2014 11:11 am

How far does the pride and egotism of a sovereign citizen extend? Well, Citizen Cromar's sovereign swami, the Sworn Sovereign Citizen Robert Wray provides an example.

On November 18, 1985 he filed a PUBLIC NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF COMMON LAW MARRIAGE with the Utah County Recorder as Entry No. 32488 n Book 2259 at Page 95. In it he says the following:

"COMES NOW THIS FREE AND INVIDUAL CITIZEN-AT-LAW (FREEMAN), child of God, TO NOTIFY AND INFORM ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE THAT on November 4, 1985 at 9:00 PM at [address given] THAT He did enter into a COMMON-LAW CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE with on Ruth Catherine Atkinson Wray, and that said CONTRACT OF HOLY MATRIMONY was pursuant to the inherent and inalienable rights and powers possessed by both as granted to them from God and guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United State Constitution.

THIS PUBLIC DECLARATION is to set the record that such marriage was in accordance with the commandments of God and was not performed by license or any form of permission granted by any government agency. Marriage is a HOLY COVENENT and as such is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY and IMMUNE from regulation of government when the two adult persons are FREEMEN and not affecting a Public Interest.

Marriage is a right, a commandment of God, and as such is immune from statutory regulation when the persons involved wish to exercise their inherent and inalienable rights granted by God and guaranteed by our First Amendment to the Constitution. A FREEMAN needs no license to do that which God commands him to do for he has a right to do it and rights cannot be regulated or restricted by government."

The document goes on for several pages, but you get the drift. Let me address some things. First, Mr. Wray files this with a government agency. Why, if the government has no say? Second, the LDS Church requires those living together to get a marriage license and get married before civil authorities before they can get baptized. I wonder if you lose your membership if our live with someone who was your legal and lawful wife, but in the eyes of civil law, no longer is. Third, a common law marriage, both by its name and by definition is a creation of law of the land. Common law marriage is where a court will recognize that a couple is married, even though they have not obtained a marriage license. Judicial recognition of a common law marriage (which is recognition by the government) usually happens when property rights or family rights are at issue.

In other words, despite Mr. Wray's bristling against government involvement in marriage, even his declaration tacitly involves the government and the legal principles upon which he attempts to rely are only valid if recognized by the government. (I strongly suspect there are countries that do not recognize common law marriages).

Finally, Mr. Wray relies upon the Constitution, which is nothing other than a government law. Not all governments have constitutions. Constitutions are inherently laws of the government.

What we see is that Sworn Sovereign Citizen Robert Wray is nothing other than anti-government. He isn't for a free society, he advocates no society but his own wishes. His preferences trump those of all others, complete tyranny where he is the tyrant.

This is the man to whom Citizen Cromar gave power of attorney (well after the above declaration was filed) and who appeared in court and before the IRS on behalf of Citizen Cromar.

TRUTH BE TOLD, Citizen Cromar has chained himself to a fool.
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:15 pm

Postby Molly » Fri May 30, 2014 6:16 pm

Just remember that you are free to disagree with me or just ignore me. I don't have a problem with either. Just don't egg my house.

Return to “Other Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests