Sovereign citizens

[Louisa Bannon]

I like this one. Judge completely owned the guy.

I didn't watch the whole thing, I skipped around to get the gist of it.

In the video it seems like they managed to get the defendant's blood alcohol by some means - that's a critical defense flaw. Often there's a penal code section covering intoxication and the defendant gave them the evidence they needed, anything else he may try as a defense is of course going to sound dumb then. So the judge didn't own him, he owned himself. He didn't stand on his rights until it was too late and then he was basically talking nonsense.

You never submit to a test esp if you think you will fail it. If you submit to the test, at that point its just how do you want to pay the fine and settle other possible punishments. It's all over but the crying. Penalties can include jail time, significant sums of money into the thousands, suspension of one's driver's license, sometimes they make you take classes, and your insurance will jump. Just exactly what you all think it entails.

-----------------
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90
-----------------

If you are going to stand on your rights you have to do so from the first moment and never give in on anything. If you don't submit to the test then generally your license will be suspended for some period of time purely for statutory reasons, usually starting at 90 days. At the same time, they have no evidence that you were drunk so they have to drop any notion of such a charge.

There's one small issue that seems to get no attention in that video, IIRC it was stated that the defendant didn't have a driver's license. Why does it matter? Because if he doesn't have a driver's license then the vehicle code doesn't apply to him because he never agreed to comply with anything in it. He can't be taken to a traffic court because he can challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Ostensibly, he would need to be taken to a common law magistrate and charged with an offense under the penal code, a misdemeanor or felony. But whatever, I didn't see anything that suggested the guy was raising substantive issues.

[callipygoustp]

So many negative sovereign citizen stories(videos). How about a few positive stories!

[Louisa Bannon]

This doesn't seem to have any relation to your attempt to conflate the right to travel with the right to travel by driving a car, which is the only thing I've commented on.

I've already told you that rights not listed in the Constitution are not disparaged by their lack of inclusion. I also recognize that the Ninth Amendment is a fighting clause, one has to assert a right and then defend it. I also understand that civil statutes regulating the use of motor vehicles exist.

How do rights work? It's part of the system of checks and balances ultimately.

Let's say there is a law that states I can't ride the front of a bus. How do I challenge that law and defend my rights? I have to violate that law and defend my rights in court. In the famous case concerning that scenario, it went all the way to the Supreme Court and the woman in question got her hoped for result.

Let's mess with history...

Let's say certain people aren't allowed to ride the front of the bus. Sure, that's discriminatory, but whatevs. So a person from the class not allowed to ride the front of the bus, does so and challenges the law. That person is arrested, tried and convicted. There is a real controversy. To move the case forward it must be appealed, and the first appeal of any case is a matter of right. So the case is appealed. The appellate court rules against the defendant, so she appeals again. In our current system of justice every appeal after the first one is entertained entirely by the leave of the higher court - if they want to hear the case they will grant a "writ of certiorari." If they don't want to hear the case, the last adjudication stands. So let's say in this version of history, higher courts refuse to hear the case.

At that point the person that challenged the law has to eat it raw and swallow.

That's how the system works.

Does it mean that a discriminatory law is just? No, it doesn't. It means that until ever higher courts are actually willing to hear the case the law will stand because of the might and persistence of the government. The law stands because the govt has the means to enforce it and the courts aren't interested in changing the situation.

When it comes to the whole driver's license thing, you are talking about REALLY serious money not to mention the various ways it make the job of the police far easier for them. They are never going to let the issue go any higher than it has so far.

[Louisa Bannon]

Quoting some of the obiter dictum from Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179:

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

-------------------
The court then goes on to uphold a licensing scheme. My purpose in quoting this part is to show that everything I have been asserting as a right is generally recognized by the judge making the ruling, but he then goes on to uphold that what he has declared a right can be regulated. To me that's kind of weird.

I would argue that the current licensing scheme is unconstitutional precisely because everyone is forced to waive their rights by the particulars of several sections of most state vehicle codes. Further, a person traveling by right doesn't need a "license." If the state wants to be sure that everyone that is driving is competent behind the wheel they could alternatively require an operator's permit, test the person and done. A licensing scheme is better suited to people like chauffeurs and truckers, people making use of the rights of way for commerce by transporting persons or goods in an extraordinary use of the roads.

At no time would a reasonable person sacrifice certain rights just to enjoy other rights. That's what the current driver's license situation requires.

[Slant]

What's a license? One definition is an express grant to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. The phrase "license to kill" perfectly encapsulates how a true license should work.

Now I want you to understand that the right to travel has been recognized since the time of the Magna Carta. So what's all this about a license?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

The license is the permission the state grants you to ride on the state's roads. That you aren't allowed to use vehicles on the road without a license doesn't stop you from moving about, thus I have no idea whatsoever why you link freedom of movement. You are free to walk anywhere you want without a license. I'm talking about public spaces, naturally, not private property where you may in fact not be allowed to walk where you want etc. etc.

[Xandrigity]

Hahahahahahahahahaha I could watch these all day long!!!

[Amalaric]

They're fucking crazy, they have the right to feel that they're sovereign citizens of earth or whatever the fuck but they are delusional if they think that it means the laws of society doesn't apply to them.

There's lots and lots of crazy people in America and the ones you hear about is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Magicpot]

You give them too much credit to say they are "full of shit"

Shit is the product of a natural bodily function and has a purpose (being recycled by microbes and various other animals).

These people's arguments are not just meaningless, they're actively annoying.

[Deleted]

Why would they be annoying to people. The arguments put forwards in this thread seem sensible enough.
Although I' have noticed some sadistic attitudes from posters in seeing innocent people abused whatever the reason.

The license is the permission the state grants you to ride on the state's roads. That you aren't allowed to use vehicles on the road without a license doesn't stop you from moving about, thus I have no idea whatsoever why you link freedom of movement. You are free to walk anywhere you want without a license. I'm talking about public spaces, naturally, not private property where you may in fact not be allowed to walk where you want etc. etc.

You've been given arguments against that from a legal perspective. What you're arguing for is a constructive denial of those rights.

People have already made the comments and counter arguments that you can walk instead, which is as ridiculous as saying you can swim across the Atlantic.

[Santti]

Chipmunk woman yelling rape and shit

Holy shit. That is hilarious! And sad. Especially sad.

[Violent]

Never quite understood the logic they use to think laws do not apply to them.

The same logic that any King, Queen, Government, or Dictator uses.
Authority..

Know why all you other people think it's "soo retarded", but yet it's EXACTLY what ever power on Earth has done for ages??

Because you're all pawns. Willing to accept some arbitrary people as your "leaders" and your moral & ethical compasses.

The ONLY reason any Government, Dictator, or more has the authority, or "sovereignty" is because they are recognized by other Kings, Governments, Dictators, as "rightful power".

It's a fuckin game. You all say these people are retarded.. LOL Tell your own Government that, because they're doing the EXACT same thing..
What cause they got badges and guns, that mean they pretty much own you all?
Well with everyone's attitude here, I see why.

And I bet most you even try and call other people in-game "plebs" Hahaha Irony at it's best. Slaves.

[the game]

Why would they be annoying to people. The arguments put forwards in this thread seem sensible enough.
Although I' have noticed some sadistic attitudes from posters in seeing innocent people abused whatever the reason.




You've been given arguments against that from a legal perspective. What you're arguing for is a constructive denial of those rights.

People have already made the comments and counter arguments that you can walk instead, which is as ridiculous as saying you can swim across the Atlantic.

God forbid people walk these days. Or take a bus or a train.

[bladeXcrasher]

That first guy arguing with the judge reminds me of Endus' arguments.

[Slant]

People have already made the comments and counter arguments that you can walk instead, which is as ridiculous as saying you can swim across the Atlantic.

No, that is the actual argument. That you or those sovereign citizens don't think it's enough of an argument is unfortunate, but ultimately your personal problem. You are free to change the laws within the bounds your legal system gives you. That means you can go and get elected and then convince enough people in Congress to change the law so that your "right of free movement" includes more ways of travel than merely moving on your own two feet.

But that doesn't mean that under current legal rules you have a constitutional right to drive a car. You do not have that. You do not even have a right to get a driver's license. You can ask for it, you can meet all the requirements and then you can get the special permission to operate such a vehicle. But the default state is that you do not get to drive a vehicle.

And quite honestly, the argument ends there. That's how it is. The natural laws they quote? Worth less than the air they use to utter those lines. Yes, life's unfair and it's unjust and all that jazz, but that's how the cookie crumbles and outside of weird philosophical discussions, nobody gives a fuck what you or those sovereign citizens think they should be entitled to. :P

[Slant]

Funny that they use laws to defend themself against legal action, when they believe the laws do not apply for them

That is the core of their belief. Laws only apply to them when they benefit from them. But laws are fine to restrict everyone else. These guys are the dumb bottom feeders of the village idiots that think they somehow "outsmarted" the legal system. Sad truth is, they haven't. Never had. Not with those idiotic arguments that a 6 year old could dismantle.

[Violent]

That is the core of their belief. Laws only apply to them when they benefit from them. But laws are fine to restrict everyone else. These guys are the dumb bottom feeders of the village idiots that think they somehow "outsmarted" the legal system. Sad truth is, they haven't. Never had. Not with those idiotic arguments that a 6 year old could dismantle.

Can't outsmart a system that won't let one gain enough knowledge to first understand said system.

Wanna understand it? It's all Bullshit. Words written down somewhere. Titles & documents.
And the only reason it STILL works, is because there's not enough of you whom have realized really what's going on here, or enough of you to care to try and change it..

Obviously our systems have changed a little bit since say, 2000 BC.. But that is because why? Because enough people gained the knowledge to realize the ones in power stay in power by "tricking" the rest of us.

Wake up people.

[Kokolums]

People identifying as sovereign citizens is the exact same as people identifying as Pokemon or rabbits or other assorted critters.

It's bullshit and people don't get a choice what they identify as.

For example I can say "I identify as a sovereign citizen" and then go run around the street naked. I'm still committing a crime because the society I live in doesn't recognize my fanciful claims, and rightly so.

That's actually not true. There are groups of people in the United States where laws do not apply to them.

The Amish for example are exempt from laws that mandate all children must be schooled according to US guidelines. The Amish had to fight a court battle but they won on the grounds of religious freedom and that their children receive adequate schooling for their lifestyle.

If the Soverign Citizen movement simply redefined themselves as a religious group and argued their cases under the same winning arguments used by the Amish, they would succeed.

[Violent]

That's actually not true. There are groups of people in the United States where laws do not apply to them.

The Amish for example are exempt from laws that mandate all children must be schooled according to US guidelines. The Amish had to fight a court battle but they won on the grounds of religious freedom and that their children receive adequate schooling for their lifestyle.

If the Soverign Citizen movement simply redefined themselves as a religious group and argued their cases under the same winning arguments used by the Amish, they would succeed.

"The Amish for example are exempt from laws that mandate all children must be schooled according to US guidelines. The Amish had to fight a court battle but they won on the grounds of religious freedom and that their children receive adequate schooling for their lifestyle."

Exactly... See? No "God" or "higher-power" has instilled ANY authority to any government, King, or Dictator.



It's like the Goldfish analogy.. You have Two Goldfish.. Goldfish-A & Goldfish-B..
If you put both Goldfish in the same tiny Goldfish bowl... What gives Goldfish-A The "right" to tell Goldfish-B what to do or not to do?
Nothing.

We're all the Goldfish.

It's all what a "few" people, No better, than anyone else. Telling others what they can or cannot do.

[Slant]

Can't outsmart a system that won't let one gain enough knowledge to first understand said system.

Wanna understand it? It's all Bullshit. Words written down somewhere. Titles & documents.
And the only reason it STILL works, is because there's not enough of you whom have realized really what's going on here, or enough of you to care to try and change it..

Obviously our systems have changed a little bit since say, 2000 BC.. But that is because why? Because enough people gained the knowledge to realize the ones in power stay in power by "tricking" the rest of us.

Wake up people.

Typical argument of people that are too lazy to research: It's too complicated, so it must be thought up by people to confuse other people. It's the rest of the world, it's not me. Since I don't understand it, it's meant to enslave me.

[Violent]

Typical argument of people that are too lazy to research: It's too complicated, so it must be thought up by people to confuse other people. It's the rest of the world, it's not me. Since I don't understand it, it's meant to enslave me.

I never said I didn't understand it.
I said the rest of the world doesn't. And I mean, obviously you don't. Just because it's 2017, you think all the worlds' "evils" are gone?
Sorry, but they're not.
So, if people in positions of power abused them before, you think now in 2017 with the internet & space flight, that those abuses are somehow gone??

They *poof* out of existence because you can sit behind a keyboard and voice your opinion?