Please don't try to pierce the fog around their heads. If they were to learn for a fact their nonsense doesn't fly, there wouldn't be videos of them making asses of themselves, and I would be that much less entertained.
Are you positive about that nonsense your promoting. Stop playing into tyranny and the move to a communist structure of enslavement more so than it already is.ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
I happened upon a family trying Sovereign Citizens 'defense' techniques in court, I did not realize this was a thing and though they were just trying for an insanity defense
Arguing with a "sovereign citizen" is like arguing with a Flat Earther. They have "alternative facts" but the main thing is the gigantic conspiracy that they believe surrounds them.
If a person doesn’t want to be a part of an exploitative government, why would that be seen as a bad thing? I’m more than capable to live with out them.
Honestly!! Do they really believe that we've all been sneaking around in secret meetings about them? Hey guys, Steve's gonna be running out to the gas & sip at 1:15pm Friday. Who's turn is it to violate his inalienable rights? They are so damn self important, they think the other 8 billion people in the world shouldn't look at them, talk to them or approach them or their property, and that everyone owes them. They are being eaten alive from the inside out by their own digestive juices
BAR card holders don’t want people to know their rights. That’s why this slick talker was careful about his wording. Huge difference between a “sovereign citizen” and a State National with diplomatic immunity. You can’t just pull the sovereign citizen label out of your ass. There is a legal process to unincorporate from the US corporation a reclaim sovereignty if you were born on American soil. There are over 10 million State Nationals in America right now and it is growing. But they don’t tell you that. They focus on “sovereign citizens” to make the whole idea sound crackpot. Being an incorporated mind controlled slave for the US corporation is much more stupid than becoming a State National and separating from that.
Internet = "if you claim not be a citizen, then the court has no jurisdiction! END OF!! -you walk free" Sovereign Wakadoodle = "I like the sounds of that and I 'get it'. It's the truth 100% the truth!!" Sovereign Wakadoodle = " You're not the Boss of Me ! " Judge = " Guilty , Next case. " Sovereign Wakadoodle = "...but ...but ...the internet, the internet told me!!!!! Whats going on???"
first of all only children would use an oxymoron like "sovereign citizen"....You can't be a sovereign and a shitizen...The courts are quasi-public private -corporations operating under martial/admiralty-law to harvest Americans for their foreign-owners...If you would like we can have an online debate about this and I'll make you look like a bumbling-fumbling fool!
@@user-bk2vg7ym5w I mean, it is a sovereign citizens as they think they cannot be charged for crimes. That's like saying the laws of the US apply in France, and the laws of France do not apply to me because I'm not a citizen of France. You make absolutely no sense. It doesn't matter though, because fortunately the sovereign citizen excuse doesn't fly in the courts.
@@user-bk2vg7ym5w dude you should debate vausch on this. You would get dismantled also the fact you can't even avoid paying taxes doing this. Lots of people with. More money and resources than you have tried it and lost
1. What is the legal definition of a Sovereign Citizen? 2. What is the legal definition of Sovereign? 3. What is the legal definition of a citizen. 4. What is the legal definition of a U.S. citizen 5. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty and if so why are you only given the choices of guilty, not guilty or no contest? 6. Does your legal status determine which type of court you should have your case heard in, administrative/legislative court or a judicial law court?
The sovereigns don’t argue the facts of the case. They try to challenge jurisdiction mostly, or argue invalid points of law (I’m not driving I’m traveling; I have no contracts with the US, etc)
DozensOfViewers Can someone explain this? The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. Case #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property there on, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . Incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws.) Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver's license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle. Pursuant to the 10th Amendment all 50 states have seen fit to enact their own traffic codes. ????????? I AM NOT one of these sovereign people
Dustin Stout basically the quote is from an old court case that was not about drivers licenses, taken out of context. They take that, plus a definition of driving from a 110-year-old dictionary and conclude that licenses are not required. They are 100% wrong. Licenses are required by every state to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, and no court has ever ruled differently.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily citing quotes from other cases has no bearing on whether you need a license to drive in a state, unless that case was about the requirement for licensure in that state. This is a common misconception among sov’tards - that you can find one definition anywhere and apply it everywhere. It doesn’t work like that.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily you forgot Thompson v Smith: The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
Dustin Stout two things: 1) You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. 2) States are permitted to regulate motor vehicle operation per the 10th Amendment. 3) the citation from the court case you seem to be citing, Thompson v Smith is incomplete. Here's the rest: The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
The laws that sovereign citizen try to use are the old laws the are out dated. The laws were made right after American revolution so people could move between freely between states and territories and not need papers to do so. These are some of the laws they try to state and they are no longer in affect.
I really dont see how its embarrassing. Once you understand the law, and not what YOU THINK the law is.. you may understand. No corporation has the right to impose its policies on you. That's the basis. I wouldn't take the BAR members argument over anyone's. They have been trained to operate in a corporate system. I'm not a sovereign citizen, I just know the law. If you would like to know the law.. look at them. Look up the pertinent USC. Look the court decisions. That doesnt mean laws dont apply, it means the corporations cant collect money from non members.
@ Wrong. He clearly said "I'm not a sovereign citizen" so that makes you a liar by calling him sovereign. You must be a lawyer because that's right out of a scum lawyer's playbook.
I believe they are correct about some things but there methods are not kosher U.S citizens in law are born in the States Aka Washington Puerto Rico Guam Virgin Islands and the territory’s owned by DC and are considered property of that State ! It is fact in law . state citizens are sovereign and retain the sovereignty of the several states! Several states by definition even in ucc are the sovereign 50 states it’s all word play and deception by default. So unless you were born in the District of Columbia or its territories you by default are not a US citizen you are a state citizen aka sovereign. And if you claim to be a us citizen you are committing perjury. This guy is a troll put in place to discourage all of you from retaining your lawful rights in law .The 14 amendment explains clearly if interpreted properly Jurisdiction is 2 deferent kinds one of the District of Columbia legal slavery, and one of the several sovereign states. It’s in law ! Stop taking people’s word for it and do your own research! The law books are there problem is everyone is more entertained with social media than there facts in law . People for centuries have been considered corporate fiction. And cause you believe it means a man or woman you loose cause that is not the definition used in law . Legal is color of law make believe. Lawful is fact in law . The constitution is lawful . And codes statues and regulations are color of law legal. Wake up America! Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Lawyers don’t get away with things cause there lawyers! They get away with things cause they know how lawful law is written and how to implement it ! It is through your own ignorance of it that you are still a slave! What a joke about getting an attorney. Fact is when you hire an attorney he owes you nothing! His duty is to the courts first blacks law . They only exist cause of your ignorance if you were smart and well educated you would know that hiring an attorney only proves your incompetence and he will never protect your rights for only a man standing on his own 2 feet can protect his rights! Learn the law! Stop being ignorant.
This is exactly the same legal gibberish this lawyer is referring to, from someone whose ignorance of the law is profoundly manifest in every sentence written.
@@ObservantHistorian wow dems Must love you. My sentences are facts coming from all legal dictionaries. I think you should investigate what is not facts and rebut that . The fact that you just attack with no rebuttals to facts says a lot about your education. You just take people’s word for it right. No brain. The sky is purple😂 (you) um ok. Where’s the proof? Ignorance is bliss and I hope you aren’t American . If you are a u.s citizen then that would explain a lot . DC likes there citizens dumb.
Sovereign Sovereign, not Sovereign citizen: 1 can this court preside over man of flesh and blood and matters of man of flesh and blood? 2 Can this court swear before an international court that it is a sovereign court? 3 when and how much will I be compensated if you make a mistake?
@Butcher Bird noone or no one...or nobody... Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it is gibberish. The borrowed names are used by incompetent beings as if it was not borrowed. I can create myself some name. I don't need to use borrowed ones. I don't need to be A member of the same society or SOCIETY as you. How irrational is that? Instead of member I would say imposed beneficiary. Get your Vaccination.
I am searching for some sovereign citizens videos. I'm a producer for a channel that debunks them right along with cop watchers and frauditors, Moores etc.. I am happy that I came across your Channel!!💖💖 I'm an extreme Law/Crime nerd! Lol Not a lawyer just a law nerd!
@@coimbralaw well I produce for the channel that I'm talking about in that channel is "KFARR" moderate for about 25 channels or more also so I will be dropping your link to get your numbers boosted because I love that part of what I do. Are you familiar with any of the other channels? Vilified Freedom is my other channel. I already have your Channel link ready to go to be dropped! If you want it worded differently just let me know. Now the link will show up scrambled here because I am moderator but you will get the important part which is the wording. If you want it worded any other way let me know! 💪💪💖💖
I'm not a moderator so I would not be able to post a link here but you can go look at the channel it's call KFARR The only people who can never drop links in the comment section or any live streams/premieres would be a moderator you would choose on your Channel 💖
They can ALWAYS be trespassed from ANYWHERE they're not welcome. Every time a frauditor leaves a facility when he's good and ready, without a trespass, the police and property adminstration have been feckless, castrated CUCKS. Being unwelcome is all the reason in the world for somebody to have to leave. Also, as long as a sign is posted that says "No Photography", there is no overriding Constitutional Right. Policy is as good as law. It amazes me how many police and building officials don't know the Sheets/Punta Gorda ruling which established the precedent that Public Sector employees have all the right to throw out human garbage as their counterparts in the Private Sector. There is ACTUALLY NO LEGAL LOOPHOLE that allows somebody to remain on Public Sector property if they're not welcome. Again, the only reason so-called "First Amendment auditors" are allowed to remain on the property filming after being told to leave is that the cops have no balls and the administrators of the property have no balls. They let these subhuman parasites bamboozle them into thinking there's going to be a civil rights lawsuit. That or the cops are too lazy for to do a slew of paperwork for a misdemeanor. I am quite happy, however, with the trend I've seen on Frauditor channels of police and/or DAs ignoring crimes where the victim is a First Amendment frauditor. Charges against the Synagogue security guard who shot "Furry Potato" were dropped. Charges were dropped on the business proprietor who destroyed SLO County's Cannon HD camera. He broke the camera because SLO County Observer refused to explain why he was filming his business. Blind Justice was locked into a maintenance yard after he failed to leave a utility business when so instructed. That was out-and-out KIDNAPPING and the police he always insulted decided not to do anything about felony kidnapping because they didn't like Blind Justice. Social Mores trump individual rights and the police and DAs are ignoring crimes committed against rude, condescending victims who bring their victimization upon themselves. And the two frauditors who died of drug overdoses, GOOD! More should follow suit.The life of anybody who thinks their individualism trumps their obligation to society SHOULD BE forfeit.
@@rekskadinger8673 your right and this video proves we all need to step up and claim our natural birth right. Ernie blows this judge out of the water.ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
@@rekskadinger8673 well you obviously are well read on the subject to cause the judge to leave her court room. Can you or better yet, I'd like to learn more ,to remove myself from the contract with soc.security etc but have no idea where to start or how to come about this valuable info . Any help well I'd be very grateful. In advance thanks !
Ah, the ol 'mention something relatable' tactic. Well played, Shiller. Considering the majority of amerikans (the target audience for internet disinformation agents) are small-minded enough to be fans of football, your comment is certainly appealing! Bravo!
The worst is when one one of these people manages to get what they want or get a case dismissed because either they're so annoying and obstinate that the official stops fighting just to make them go away, OR they persist long enough for someone else to make a mistake (like a cop not showing up to testify). They then take this as evidence that their BS "works" which further entrenches the SC's beliefs. Of course to get there, they usually spent so much time, effort, perhaps money, and sometimes other costs like having to spend some time in jail, that most normal people would not consider it worth it at all. But to them it's a victory. The police and courts need to take a zero-tolerance policy with SCs.
The word sovereign citizen. Is an oxymoron. I'm neither ox nor a moron. Also. Those who are working in government positions of office authority. Or. Sovereign citizens. For they are in an office of emolument, in which we. The sovereign people pay them.
I've stayed grounded in the law....I've read and studied the unconstitutional statutes, codes, regulations and ordinances. It all has to do with your standing....who you are. Are you the government created fiction....??? Or the living breathing natural human being....??? If your the fiction....your guilty Everytime all time. If your the natural human being....you do not even belong in court. Not what's called court today. Your in an Admiralty Maritime Commercial Jurisdiction. The laws of Admiralty, The laws of the Seas. Beginning with Clerks Praxis.....an ending in Socialism / Communism. Which is where we are at today. In a bankrupt for profit debtor corporation called the United States. Along with the 50 States. You have to understand contract law. All contracts are in commerce. All commerce is contracts. Do not consent to anything and they stick the debt or "charge" upon someone else. Do you know that a DA is required to carry his check book into the court room. Because if they cannot stick you with the liability....and thus become the surety for the debt....The DA pays. Then the shit really gets interesting. They will try to throw contempt of court charges at you for being belligerent...even if your not. Contempt is the only thing they can charge you with. You simply ask " as a matter of law, what are the nature of these charges".....??? They have to tell you....it's going to be something bogus anyway. Just to rattle you and throw off your concentration. All charges must have a statute that they fall under and a statement of when and where this violation occurred. It's fraud ...pure and simple. From there you have a few options. Point to the bailiff who's armed and ask are you a duly sworn law enforcement officer. Then their name. Ask if they have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. Announce that they are now working for you. point to the Luciferian wearing the Black robes of Saturnalia worship and the Agent for the state....the DA. And announce that you want both arrested for their fraud against all laws. You DEMAND IT. I f they say they want a Psyche eval done on you....you do not consent. You do not consent to any offer, order, or demand from an unconstitutional Admiralty, Maritime , Commercial Jurisdiction. They are all offers any way....Offers of acceptance. You accept the offer now you have just contracted with them....and now your fucked. And not in a good way. You want to discharge the debt. So just write an I O U .....I OWE THIS COURT $1,000,000 for the charge of bullshit and fraud AND SIGN IT. Your signature is worth everything. And that's what they are after anyway is money. When you go to a bank. Banks do not lend you other peoples money for a loan you want to take out. That's illegal under the banking regulations acts. They create money out of thin air. Well they actually create it off your signature. A court can do the same exact thing. You conditionally accept the charge for value. Write your I O U sign it ...hand it to the DA....or Clerk of Courts
Please do me a favor. Commit some minor offense and get arrested for it. When you go to court, be sure to video all your interactions with the court, where you can show off the power of all your arguments. I for one very much look forward to seeing the video.
I guess you suggest everyone bend over, hire an attorney, pay him $300 an hour, & pay them for 50 hours of research (research they don't even do). They take 1/3 of your SUFFERING $$$ (settlement) without even going to court. So even if you win you lose anyway. The judge takes an oath to the government, your lawyer takes an oath to the court, the prosecutor takes an oath to the court and wants to find you guilty whether you are or not. They are all members of the BAR. All of them play games with peoples lives. They don't care about anything but money. People who've had their bodies damaged permanently by others & suffer severe pain in addition, are forced into an unfair system of justice. A+ rated insurance hires the BEST attorneys and will stall and fight until they BEAT YOU DOWN & go into financial AND physical ruin. either way. They just want to win. Sorry, I never had a problem with an attorney until I needed one. Will never hire one again. I'll file a lawsuit by myself and take my amputated, bloody body part into a pickled jar as a witness.
Dude... having watched enough of these sov cit court videos, it's clear their goal is to annoy the courts and tie up law enforcement with the broader goal of behavior modification. IE.. don't bother pulling that guy over... it's just going to lead to a big waste of time. Until judges start charging for court time for guys who do this, there will be enough of these morons continuing to do this. The reason why they don't want to hire you is that costs them money. They are tying up the courts on a traffic violation... not a murder charge.
@@mickeywicked478 Specifically what laws are "bogus?" If you are going to drive on the roads, you should prove competency and that's with a license. If you drive outside the rules of those roads, there has to be a mechanism in place to keep you off the roads before you hurt or kill someone, and that's revoking that license. If you are going to drive on those roads, I (and the rest of society) wants to know you have the financial means to pay for damage you cause (insurance). If you don't have insurance or assets, what is my remedy with you for the damage you cause? Example... if you rammed into my car and totaled it... and hurt/killed my wife... and you had no insurance, would I be right in pulling out a gun and kill you? Or would you THEN expect the police to protect YOU with those "bogus laws?"
@@jcjbike If I accidentally killed your wife and you purposely killed me, you’re wrong. I don’t expect any laws to protect me, bud, I can protect myself. No matter how you cut the cake, there’s validity to this sovereign citizen stuff...NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DON’T LIKE IT 😊
@@mickeywicked478 Having a gun and living within a society where you never have to use it is a lot different than a lawless society that you are advocating for. We had that in the wild west days and people demanded some kind of order be established. You clearly prefer the benefits of an organized society or you'd move to El Salvador or Somalia. To your point... there is no "validity" to lawlessness and judging by the kind of people I see pulling the sov cit BS, most of them wouldn't last in a lawless society very long. So I will keep enjoying videos of sov cits getting tazed and moaning in pain and they get 10,000 volts of "you are an utter moron" shot into their bodies.
Demetrius... you can live your "private life" in your home. But when you choose to go out on publicly funded roads in a machine that weights 3,000+ pounds and can reach speeds of 70+ mph, you had better be able to show you know how to operate it safely and you had better operate it safely. We are all here a very short period of time. If you want to believe some guy on the internet is telling you, you don't need a license to drive, that's your call and you must live with those consequences. There are tons of videos on youtube that show sov citizen failures.. (ie. broken windows, towed cars, tazers, contempt of court... etc.) Good luck with that fantasy world you are living in... it must bring you a great deal of "thrill" knowing that whenever you go out on the roads, you risk getting ticketed and/or arrested.
It comes down to this for me... so long as there is no injured party... gov gains its authority from me thru my consent. If I do not consent. I am not of subject status. I do not take a position of domicile with in their jurisdiction. oh but then they say you pay texes yes or you have a birth certificate yes? ...yes... all under duress and if i am not mistaken a contract requires a meeting of minds to make the contract legitimate. How as a new born was i am to give such consent. Ultimately I find Common law courts are where i win. Admiralty law courts, which most all courts are, is where i lose. Thank good lord JEsus for Appeals lol
I am two beings. One A flesh blood and spirit sovereign part of a republic. (Freeman) Two, A fictitious paper-bodied subject belonging to a corporate democracy. (Slave)
@@rekskadinger8673 The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. It basically set up a new government for the District of Columbia. And that's all. Got nothing to do with anything else.
The fundamental problem I find with the criminal system is that if search and seizure law says "probable cause" in the constitution, and we arrive at the point that an arrest is a seizure of the person, it then finds that the term "probable cause" needs to be given a direct and distinct constitutional meaning if we are to follow a "strict constructionist" view in the fashion of J. Scalia (strict constructionist theory is the basic theory that the United States constitution Means exactly what it says as the framers intended, nothing more nothing less.) To bring what I'm talking about home: I've seen citizen's arrest cases be denied on the basis of lack of "probable cause" with an identical case being presented by a police officer with the court giving the exact opposite ruling with complete and utter disregard to stare decisis with respect to rulings in the same court before the same judge, to the extent of direct contradiction from case to case. In short, the constitutional legal theory needs to be less vague, less of a case-by-case basis mentality, and more of a distinct and absolute doctrine that is not to be altered under any circumstance, regardless of emotion or political inclination. (for example- I find no reason to believe the framers of the constitution intended a "convicted felon" exception to the second amendment on the basis of the fact that the text has ZERO limiting language combined with the fact that the constitution uses the phrase "high crimes" in several other places, meaning that the framers were well acquainted with the concept of a "felony" at the time. ergo, because we must assume that the framers deliberately left out any limiting clause, we cannot simply "insert" that language into the constitution without an amendment to the text. This is especially true given D.C. v. Heller, which stated that the second amendment is rooted in the fundamental right to self defense.) We also need to amend the government structure to remove "prosecutorial discretion" from the government's arsenal. If a crime has been committed then the individual whom committed it needs to pay the consequences without regard for political factors or any other factors save the facts of the case and what the law is. (it is neither the executive nor judicial prerogative, nor is it their business, to fix the legislature's problems.) This in turn, would result in law enforcement being held accountable for their misdeeds under statutes like 18 USC 242 and to a lesser degree 18 USC 241 - laws which are very rarely enforced because of the fact that prosecutors don't like prosecuting police officers for their crimes.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily Bar is not an acronym. "Bar" refers to a literal railing that was in the 16th century Inns of Court. Anyway, if you willingly walk into court without a lawyer, you might as well step into The Octagon with Daniel Cormier, you'll have the same odds of making it out in one piece.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily there is no British Statue in The United States of America. There's certainly British common law and jurisprudence, however.
Lawyers understand the most important reason not to go pro se: A good attorney maintains a professional distance from the case so as to look at it dispassionately and exercise good judgment about how to proceed. That's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, actually -- to maintain when it's your own personal case.
Yeah let's get it straight though. Hardly ANY so-called "Sovereign Citizen" OFFICIALLY became sovereign because there's LEGAL STEPS TO IT. If Washington or the Secretary of The State isn't involved in the process...no sovereign has standing in ANY court...no matter how "right" they are. And ANYINE saying there is no process or any way to step out of Maritime Law and become a Legally recognized Sovereign is a FRAUD no matter your degree or experience. But even if you legally went through the steps and have been verified, you can slip back into maritime if you're not careful. If you're careful, you have standing EVERY TIME. Now the courts CAN IGNORE your "legal sovereignty". But that doesn't mean they're not liable for it for the REST of their lives. Any violation of your legality can lead to terrible consequences...and all involved.
i fell into it (6 years and counting). anyone willing to assist me out? ... i cant do it alone (currently) on the fact that some of the arguments (not the general ones) hold water, that and i have evidence from the horses mouth (publications). [as i read and interpret to the best of my ability it appears that its not so much the arguments themselves but the application. thats not to say a "Sovereign Citizen is a real thing -- its not. nor is it to say "jurisdiction" is lacking all the time if at all. YES a lot of it is fringe and idiotic (waste of time even), but without it, i wouldnt have come to know (truly) what i know now. 1933 was a major year or the beginning of a major century. War powers through executive orders etc. the "sovereign" arguments presented today, the roots of those arguments were argued in past, some left for future to decide, others decided and forgotten. ] i admit. i am one of those dumbasses. or at least thats how i started. please dont think me the same but i do struggle to abandon my old ways if you know what i mean. i simply ask for a mentor, one that is as blunt and to the point as possible with room for theory (for dismissal).
I just skimmed the comments and came across two total pro-sovereign citizen comments...so I'm going to go ahead and agree with your comment that anti-sovereign citizens are delusional.
@@mickeywicked478 Luckily Reality...facts and the decisions of the courts are not conditional on your acceptance of them...No one is going to waste much time or energy trying to convince you that fire is hot & water wet... I have indeed seen people trying to tell the judge..."You Can't Tell Me What To Do!"...And even one true believer ...."You can imprison my my body!...But you will never imprison My Spirit!"... You do have a Right To Be Wrong!
@@stevebell4906 It's all about terminology and consent...meaning if you show up to court (ie "consent"), you'd better know your terminology. "You can't tell me what to do" are words that would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS come out of the mouth of an educated person, ya silly-billy! Nice, uh, straw man XD There exists not even the SHADOW of a doubt that there is something very fucky going on in the US...breaking down the ANGULAR words used in legal/government documents ONLY leads to liberation :)
@@mickeywicked478 Tell it to the judge!....Yes I know that there are perhaps millions or you...and every day I am thankful for you...Stupid and silly people have provided me and mine with an income and a comfortable retirement...and yes tons of incarcerated people will agree with you! Funny when ever one of you silly whiny boys hiding behind a bullshit name from mom's basement tries to talk in circles...
@@stevebell4906 BLAH BLAH BLAH 🤪 Chances are you’re a shill, arguing with you’d be like arguing with a wall. And if you aren’t a shill, you’re a lawyer...which means when you were called to the bar, you swore an oath..an allegiance to the fucky ones. I wouldn’t trust a thing that comes out of your mouth. The PROOF that there’s a truth worth smearing is the FACT that for every 1 sovereign citizen, there’s hundreds of nameless, faceless accounts aggressively and mockingly insulting them. Go ahead, skim the comments section on any one of these videos. They consist of 99.9% sovcit HATRED. They absolutely HATE them. What’d they key their car or something? They aren’t even speaking to someone in particular, they’re just typing their utter contempt for sovcits into the ether for the eyes of anyone trying to gain a better understanding of what the movement is about. You’re an absolute clown (if not a shillbag or a lawyer...same difference, I digress) if you see the comments sections and think that those are just regular people with regular people opinions. Clearly there’s an agenda. Clearly.
Its very difficult to represent ones self in criminal court these days....or "pro se" litigants. The simple truth is....is that most courts havr set up local rules that prevent anyone from representing themselves. This guy obviously does not know what the hell hes talking about. Only those that have been there....such as myself know. Congress has never inacted any law requiring one to be an attorney to practice law. However....round about 1871 " the american attorneys communist guild " was established. This not something i made up....its absolutely true. Requiring that anyone practicing the law must be a member of the guild and also possess a degree in law and a membership to the British Accredited Regency.....the B.A.R........Its not just a good old boys club for attorneys.....no its a bit more than that. Each member must swear an oath and allegiance to the British Crown......Hmmmmm can anyone say treason and sedition....???? And being officers of the court and agents for the state. How is it possible for anyone to receive adequate counsel in court...??? The Bible clearly states that no man can serve to masters....for he shall come to worship and idolize the one and despise and loathe the other. Thats what an attorney is today..... a Luciferian.....the reason for the rise of the sovereign movement and the so called paper terrorism becoming more prevalent is because common people have no justice in a system that is self serving.....no one stops to ask the question why is the sovereign movement taking off like wild fire....and why are people filing commercial liens on government officials....??? Brcsuse these people brlieve they are above the law......why do you think Hillary lost...??? No one trusted her. These people just dont get it. When you push a people far enough then violence is all but unavoidable....and we are quickly approaching that here in the united states. When so called government officials use unconstitutional statutes codes regulations and ordinances to destroy the lives of ordinary citizens and the right of a redress of grievances has been undermined and perverted. Then thr only thing left is to begin targeted asassinations of these rogue officials and there entire families
I've done my home work....7 years worth in state prison. I've studied many of the teachings of supreme Court judge Dale. You need to wake up from the Jewish spell you have been placed under. And pull your head from your ass
That has to be one of the craziest things I have ever read. As a member of the Michigan Bar for 33 years I can tell you that neither I nor any other attorney I know has ever been a member of the 'British Accredited Regency" and/or sworn an oath of loyalty to the British crown. Where do you get this crap?
Brian...seven years in prison tells me that you didn't understand your homework...your other comment tells me you're a stupid assed bigot, whose head is so far up your ads that, you're looking out your own mouth when uttering your dumbassery.
@@rekskadinger8673 You unfortunately not only don't have the faintest idea what you're trying so hard about but you've also swallowed a whole pant load of Sovereign Citizen nonsense. That's all very cute but now the adults are talking. Go to your room.
Corey Arms Okay. I’ll answer that. A democracy, strictly speaking, is a state where the eligible voters directly pass legislation. In ancient Athens, where Western democracy is generally considered to have started, that’s how it worked. In a Republic, eligible voters select representatives who then pass legislation. It’s not direct legislation. The executive branch works pretty much the same way under both, though.
Every SovCit recites that belief. Being in violation of the law does not require that there be an injured party. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads without proper licensing & insurance, refusing to produce ID when pulled over, interfering with a police investigation, etc. has all resulted in SovCits being arrested
@@angeladansie4378 Respectfully, are you insane? The ENTIRE premise of any violation, is that you caused harm to someone. You HAVE to be able to understand that. In a traffic violation, the injured party is the STATE. In child support, the injured party is the child. There must be an "injured party" in order for there to be a controversy. The driving argument is simple. How can the STATE charge a person with something before anyone has been hurt? [insurance] If a person runs a stop sign; who is the injured party? You have to reach to "what could have happened." By running a red light, you could have.... The question becomes "what actually happened?" Sov/Cit is an oxymoron. The reason why they are made to look like idiots, is because they become S/C after being caught doing something that they themselves agreed they wouldn't do. You won't see a video or read a court case where it was done correctly. Because when it is done correctly; there is no need to go to court. THERE ALWAYS HAS TO BE AN INJURED PARTY!!! The argument is [for S/C] is; "How can a living man cause harm to a fictitious entity?"
@@crownroyal2248 You'll notice that "Angela" never responded. That's because "Angela" is most likely a facade, a disinformation shill sent by TPTB to smear the truth. They tend to ignore the replies of the well-educated. You nailed it and because of that, "Angela" didn't bother to engage you, after all, shills don't get paid to look stupid.
@@rekskadinger8673 Nope, statutory means by statute. Those statutes were enacted by American founders and those who came later, after they became independent from Britian. Reading one sentence of a history book does not make you informed, it makes you a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@rekskadinger8673 Surely you aren't conflating statues and statutes. You aren't ruled by Rome or Britian, we just have similar laws since our country is closely tied to both through heritage. Why not point out something specific instead of speaking in large generalities? When you are specific, it is easy to refute your claims, that is why most people who make these declarations will stick to ideas instead of making actual claims of fact. Or hinge their entire argument on the root of a word, and either be wrong about that root or ignore the other way it is used. Is 33% the magic number where any awareness over that and they become conspiracy theorists? What about 32.5%? Are they missing out on so much that they still won't understand most of what the 33% will? Or is it just an arbitrary number that someone picked out of the blue because the number 33 has some significance for conspiracy theorists? Yep, figured it was the latter. Just give one specific claim with evidence to back it up.
@@rekskadinger8673 Imagine typing that with a straight face... a degree isn't a measurement of vibration. I notice you didn't have any specific claims... weird.
The real issue is that you are located "In the United States". Your driver's license and all minimal contacts prove residence. Until this is defeated you are not Sovereign. Read the Law of Nations if you don't think I'm right lol 😂🤣
Not for my case, I say I'm a foreigners seeking passage, they bury me, the judge says I need either a public defense attorney or a hired lawyer. Of course the moment I'm in their ring, they persecute me with one hand defend me with another and judge me all at the same time. How can the creator stand for this, will the creator of earth go along with whatever they concoct in court these days? He wont hire attorneys licensed by the government bar. Of course many sovereign beings are feeling that those that sit in high places on the heads of others, put themselves there. It's not a fair fight, and what is the point of experiencing reality like a slave without wanting better.
There's a variation of this Sovereign Citizen thing in Canada and I don't really get it. What do these people want ... we' already let them have as much freedom as just about anywhere in the world.... yet when they are arrested they pull out the Sovereign gag and it works as badly here as in the US. The only possible Sovereigns are native people and they would have ID to prove their native status. UA-cam law degrees are worth a little less than they cost.
That's one thing a lot of simple-minded people don't get: In court it's not about whether your argument is right or makes sense. It's about which argument will get you the best outcome.
More specifically, it is not the argument that makes the most sense to you. You are already convinced. Nor does the court have to convince you that they are right. You have to convince the court that you are right, according to their actual rules, not their rules as you think they should be. Not a lawyer nor have I ever been but seen this same phenomenon far too often as an accountant, with respect to tax law, people insisting that the tax system must work the way they think it should work
@@nctpti2073 I’m gonna stop ya right there hun, I owe you nothing. I’m not obligated to answer your questions and so I won’t. You can call it dodging, I call it not respecting women enough to entertain their silliness even on the internet. You don’t have to like it, I’m perfectly fine with me. What say you?
@@mickeywicked478 I say that I am male, you idiot. It is a common mistake based on my name, but I am fully and biologically male. Not that gender of someone has any bearing on whether anything they say is factual or not... You do not have to like anything I say, either, of course, but likewise, whether you like it or not does not make it less factual.
Sir, why do you not just say the US code is hyperbole?And fraudulent, and it does not stand for anything.Why not just tell the people right out loud?That rules code statutes and ordinances are law and that the supreme court holds no Bearing upon the people of the united states
The notion that there has to be a harmed party for someone to get convicted of a crime is one of the fundamental errors in sovcit "philosophy". Many people use it to justify driving under the influence, basically saying "hey, I was lucky enough not to kill anyone while I was driving my truck blackout drunk, so what's the problem?" The law doesn't work like that.
The Sovereign citizen is a media/gov coined term. The phrase is an oxymoronic term. Sovereignty "itself" is factually resolved to rest with the people in Chisholm vs Georgia about a decade prior to Marbury vs Madison. Anyway, a pro-se, in propia persona, "SC" arguments fail from inability& inexperience in court and they just acquiesce. A learned "sovereign" will not argue or operate in controversy. They will stand on their position & Question, but never engage in meritless arguments to put them in dishonor. Yet, stay in honor at every turn as it is the honor/dishonor system that will likely determine a fail.
I’m dealing with a family member who falls for this and every other bottom of the barrel conspiracy theory. I really wanna know how to combat this cuz they don’t listen to logic and believe everything they see online. My friends landlord also fell for this and gave some guy 30k just for the guy to tell him mortgages aren’t real so he doesn’t have to pay. He almost lost the building. If any of these people used any critical thought they’d realize none of this makes sense.
@@rekskadinger8673 Bruh your whole Organic Act argument centers on the term “municipal corporation” just refers to a city or town government and its officials. It’s literally in the dictionary. You’ve bought into a disproven conspiracy theory. Maybe rethink your life?
Can you fucking way UH MORE PLEASE!!!!????? If you are going to make a video and speak learn how to not make every other fucking sylable UH!!! Fucking shit!!
Yep. I'm sick of inarticulate uploaders. You ever heard that content creator called "Chills"? He has a PATHETIC speech pathology which fails to inflect the correct syllables of words. He pitches questions like statements and statements like exclamations....and I'm sorry but Issac Arthur needs somebody else to read his scripts. I'm tired of hearing him talking about "The Maws Wover" (Mars Rover) and "Travel between Uuth and Maws".
Also, when interacting with police, low income public housing denizens lack the diction and vocabulary to voice their objections. "Why Yoon be at my how knockin' on my doe?" "I bomba da moo moo we main silent. Ar gargle a fly boon skippy doo speak to you supa visa". "Gum bat wit a warrant". "You arressin' me becaw mime black"
Actually of you do you homework rather than make fun of people who have a certain viewpoint you would see much of what they say is true.. that does not mean it works but that's a different story
What about all parties are not presenting them selves in legal matters in their full legal name. Say using a fictional name example Jerry Tom Clark compared to Jerry T. Clark. Not full legal name?
Can someone explain this? The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. Case #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property there on, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . Incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws.) Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver's license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle. Pursuant to the 10th Amendment all 50 states have seen fit to enact their own traffic codes. ????????? I AM NOT one of these sovereign people
IT is important to note that the right to travel in the constitutional sense is the right to travel between states, states themselves can regulate vehicular travel as a public safety concern, as there is a vested interest in ensuring competence levels of drivers operating in a public area equally accessible to others. You are quoting part of the SCOTUS decision from Thompson v. Smith that sovcits frequently like to cite; "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 problem being, what is quoted in there is PART of the decision, NOT the whole decision, if you continue reading the decision: " The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L. R. A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942. [7, 8] The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. " The case in Thompson v. Smith is where the locality had gave the local magistrate discretionary power to grant and revoke at will with no guidance in policy. That is, the government could act on a whim. This is what made the court rule against the locality and for the citizen in this situation. But their decision did not grant people the right to "travel without license" in the sense of being able to operate a vehicle without license, it simply ruled that the government cannot grant or revoke on a whim, but rather that it can license for public safety reasons, and the granting or revoking must be by uniform standards. Sovcits simply stop at that one paragraph in the decision because they can use it out of context to make it appear like the law sides with them, when it does not. It is simply a quote mine fallacy.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily it is out of context. Here's the rest of the citation from Thompson v Smith: The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily I'm not concerned with what Harvard is teaching, and I don't know why you should be. Laws are not contingent on dictionaries and textbooks, they're derived from statues and case law.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily how can statutes be unconstitutional if The Constitution itself had to be ratified by legislatures that you insist are unconstitutional? Sit in a dark place and think about that one, Mr. Joshua Pitts.
"concepts" are very important. . So at least common law is a "living history", that protest`s! a right that goes back to the Magna Carta. . Iff I may say, , a sence of being that come`s from being an Island race! micro/ macro. . Iff common law was not helping to point out law, for sure U sir would not an could not teach it!! . . only!? corporatocracy rules today. .
@@angeladansie4378 please.. whats a sovcit?? ... my interests is also with that of the 1st nation people/ original tribes, , also forest law, an brehon law.. sounds like u might have a problem with those also ??? or have u a problem with herstory!!
Growing up I learned law by reading law books and having lawyers and judges tutor me. When I was 13 I represented injustices. The judge was one that helped tutor me. Several times I had to represent myself. Once for a felony, where my ex framed me. There was loads of evidence and the dfac worker and detective both broke laws. A true lawyer spent years learning. Not just any one has the ability to be a lawyer. If you value your freedom always talk to a lawyer before doing something stupid..
You cant fix stupid. Let these people continue on their inevitable path to jail as the videos they establish are entertaining. The fact they continue to rant and rave when their tactics continually fail only reveals that these people are incompatible of learning from their own mistakes.
You've literally NEVER seen a sovcit (an educated one) get thrown in jail. Plus I see you all over these video comments sections. You're a paid disinformation agent.
I work in law and see SovCits fail miserably because they think this is 1600 America. I find it humorous when they play the "jurisdiction" card and wanting to sue the court for some odd reason. As for you, I'm also a Los Angeles native. Knowing every police department and all city halls/courthouses. Let's say we get a SovCit doing this over at the Santa Monica Courthouse and he or she pulls that "jurisdiction" game. First off, you're in the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Monica inside the confines of the Los Angeles County by the state of California if I'm correct. Every state has them. SovCits just lack proper education of our American history and the laws that got built, but do kinda blame the failed educational system but also blame the failure students in those schools for not even try to learn anything. Henceforth all the SJW's, feminism and these SovCits, they all lack common sense and common logic. Always ignoring the truth. These people need to be accounted for and to accept their responsibilities for their ill-quitted actions and whatever consequences deem into a dire situation. Don't be dumb to fight it because that will humiliate yourself any further, what's going to happen if they pulled that crap inside a supreme or federal court? They won't be going home from that point.
That's great are you a craft practicing masonic Lodge member(witchcraft ) did they wave a sword in front of you on your stubbies😂 if you don't go in to court and claim to be binaficial equatable title holder of the named trust, then your soul(strawman) can burn in hell. So I can care less if they think I look stupid and want to continue robbing innocent slaves to feed and house me they are the idiots 80,% of people in jail have no victim great job law enforcement(thieves)all you are is organized crime not fooling anyone. Why don't you feel safe with your guns always wanting to groope us?
Awareness of our INDIVIDUAL Sovereignty appears important right now as part of the greater enlightenment process that is taking place... Check out the SOVEREIGN SANITY SERIES VIDEOS on youtube ; )
You guys can't handle the fact that Trump lost in 2020 even after CONSERVATIVE judges who would prefer a GOP White House couldn't find any reason to throw out the results.
Sovereign Individual, yes. Sovereign citizen is the wrong wording, it is an oxymoron.
This dude is a moron too…
Please don't try to pierce the fog around their heads. If they were to learn for a fact their nonsense doesn't fly, there wouldn't be videos of them making asses of themselves, and I would be that much less entertained.
Are you positive about that nonsense your promoting. Stop playing into tyranny and the move to a communist structure of enslavement more so than it already is.ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
I happened upon a family trying Sovereign Citizens 'defense' techniques in court, I did not realize this was a thing and though they were just trying for an insanity defense
You can't be "Sovereign" and a "Citizen"!
Arguing with a "sovereign citizen" is like arguing with a Flat Earther. They have "alternative facts" but the main thing is the gigantic conspiracy that they believe surrounds them.
Yea but both are true no matter how many shill and bot accounts exist on the internet.
If a person doesn’t want to be a part of an exploitative government, why would that be seen as a bad thing? I’m more than capable to live with out them.
@@kdeet3566 Those people MOVE, they don’t REMAIN UNDER THE GOVERNMENT THEY HATE
Honestly!! Do they really believe that we've all been sneaking around in secret meetings about them? Hey guys, Steve's gonna be running out to the gas & sip at 1:15pm Friday. Who's turn is it to violate his inalienable rights? They are so damn self important, they think the other 8 billion people in the world shouldn't look at them, talk to them or approach them or their property, and that everyone owes them. They are being eaten alive from the inside out by their own digestive juices
BAR card holders don’t want people to know their rights. That’s why this slick talker was careful about his wording. Huge difference between a “sovereign citizen” and a State National with diplomatic immunity. You can’t just pull the sovereign citizen label out of your ass. There is a legal process to unincorporate from the US corporation a reclaim sovereignty if you were born on American soil. There are over 10 million State Nationals in America right now and it is growing. But they don’t tell you that. They focus on “sovereign citizens” to make the whole idea sound crackpot. Being an incorporated mind controlled slave for the US corporation is much more stupid than becoming a State National and separating from that.
Sovereign citizen is oxymoron. You can't be sovereign and the citizen. It's either or.
Correct. But Sovereign Citizens fail to see the contradiction of the term they use.
@@samadams7573 you mean like the oxymoron you just used? There is no sovereign citizen.
“foolish mistake” to be a competent free living soul.
Sovereign Wakadoodle = " You're not the Boss of Me ! "
Judge = " Guilty , Next case. "
Internet = "if you claim not be a citizen, then the court has no jurisdiction! END OF!! -you walk free"
Sovereign Wakadoodle = "I like the sounds of that and I 'get it'. It's the truth 100% the truth!!"
Sovereign Wakadoodle = " You're not the Boss of Me ! "
Judge = " Guilty , Next case. "
Sovereign Wakadoodle = "...but ...but ...the internet, the internet told me!!!!! Whats going on???"
Har , , Ha , , i like that , , i like the way u write , , ,
first of all only children would use an oxymoron like "sovereign citizen"....You can't be a sovereign and a shitizen...The courts are quasi-public private -corporations operating under martial/admiralty-law to harvest Americans for their foreign-owners...If you would like we can have an online debate about this and I'll make you look like a bumbling-fumbling fool!
@@user-bk2vg7ym5w I mean, it is a sovereign citizens as they think they cannot be charged for crimes. That's like saying the laws of the US apply in France, and the laws of France do not apply to me because I'm not a citizen of France. You make absolutely no sense. It doesn't matter though, because fortunately the sovereign citizen excuse doesn't fly in the courts.
@@user-bk2vg7ym5w dude you should debate vausch on this. You would get dismantled also the fact you can't even avoid paying taxes doing this. Lots of people with. More money and resources than you have tried it and lost
1. What is the legal definition of a Sovereign Citizen?
2. What is the legal definition of Sovereign?
3. What is the legal definition of a citizen.
4. What is the legal definition of a U.S. citizen
5. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty and if so why are you only given the choices of guilty, not guilty or no contest?
6. Does your legal status determine which type of court you should have your case heard in, administrative/legislative court or a judicial law court?
#5 being innocent is not the same as NOT GUILTY learn the difference
@@rekskadinger8673 - I appreciate your reply. Are theses replys based in law? If so where can I find them.
@@rekskadinger8673 God is a fictional character
The court takes the default position of not believing any claims until they are met with evidence by the one who is making the claim.
The sovereigns don’t argue the facts of the case. They try to challenge jurisdiction mostly, or argue invalid points of law (I’m not driving I’m traveling; I have no contracts with the US, etc)
DozensOfViewers Can someone explain this?
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. Case #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property there on, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . Incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws.) Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver's license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle. Pursuant to the 10th Amendment all 50 states have seen fit to enact their own traffic codes.
????????? I AM NOT one of these sovereign people
Dustin Stout basically the quote is from an old court case that was not about drivers licenses, taken out of context. They take that, plus a definition of driving from a 110-year-old dictionary and conclude that licenses are not required. They are 100% wrong. Licenses are required by every state to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, and no court has ever ruled differently.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily citing quotes from other cases has no bearing on whether you need a license to drive in a state, unless that case was about the requirement for licensure in that state. This is a common misconception among sov’tards - that you can find one definition anywhere and apply it everywhere. It doesn’t work like that.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily you forgot Thompson v Smith:
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
Dustin Stout two things:
1) You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car.
2) States are permitted to regulate motor vehicle operation per the 10th Amendment.
3) the citation from the court case you seem to be citing, Thompson v Smith is incomplete. Here's the rest:
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
The laws that sovereign citizen try to use are the old laws the are out dated. The laws were made right after American revolution so people could move between freely between states and territories and not need papers to do so. These are some of the laws they try to state and they are no longer in affect.
Outdated or subverted by criminals like you?!!!
Basically never try to defend yourself in Court.
I really dont see how its embarrassing. Once you understand the law, and not what YOU THINK the law is.. you may understand. No corporation has the right to impose its policies on you. That's the basis. I wouldn't take the BAR members argument over anyone's. They have been trained to operate in a corporate system. I'm not a sovereign citizen, I just know the law. If you would like to know the law.. look at them. Look up the pertinent USC. Look the court decisions. That doesnt mean laws dont apply, it means the corporations cant collect money from non members.
@ Wrong. He clearly said "I'm not a sovereign citizen" so that makes you a liar by calling him sovereign. You must be a lawyer because that's right out of a scum lawyer's playbook.
I believe they are correct about some things but there methods are not kosher U.S citizens in law are born in the States Aka Washington Puerto Rico Guam Virgin Islands and the territory’s owned by DC and are considered property of that State ! It is fact in law . state citizens are sovereign and retain the sovereignty of the several states! Several states by definition even in ucc are the sovereign 50 states it’s all word play and deception by default. So unless you were born in the District of Columbia or its territories you by default are not a US citizen you are a state citizen aka sovereign. And if you claim to be a us citizen you are committing perjury. This guy is a troll put in place to discourage all of you from retaining your lawful rights in law .The 14 amendment explains clearly if interpreted properly Jurisdiction is 2 deferent kinds one of the District of Columbia legal slavery, and one of the several sovereign states. It’s in law ! Stop taking people’s word for it and do your own research! The law books are there problem is everyone is more entertained with social media than there facts in law . People for centuries have been considered corporate fiction. And cause you believe it means a man or woman you loose cause that is not the definition used in law . Legal is color of law make believe. Lawful is fact in law . The constitution is lawful . And codes statues and regulations are color of law legal. Wake up America! Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Lawyers don’t get away with things cause there lawyers! They get away with things cause they know how lawful law is written and how to implement it ! It is through your own ignorance of it that you are still a slave! What a joke about getting an attorney. Fact is when you hire an attorney he owes you nothing! His duty is to the courts first blacks law . They only exist cause of your ignorance if you were smart and well educated you would know that hiring an attorney only proves your incompetence and he will never protect your rights for only a man standing on his own 2 feet can protect his rights! Learn the law! Stop being ignorant.
This is exactly the same legal gibberish this lawyer is referring to, from someone whose ignorance of the law is profoundly manifest in every sentence written.
@@ObservantHistorian wow dems
Must love you. My sentences are facts coming from all legal dictionaries. I think you should investigate what is not facts and rebut that . The fact that you just attack with no rebuttals to facts says a lot about your education. You just take people’s word for it right. No brain. The sky is purple😂 (you) um ok. Where’s the proof? Ignorance is bliss and I hope you aren’t American . If you are a u.s citizen then that would explain a lot . DC likes there citizens dumb.
Sovereign Sovereign, not Sovereign citizen: 1 can this court preside over man of flesh and blood and matters of man of flesh and blood? 2 Can this court swear before an international court that it is a sovereign court? 3 when and how much will I be compensated if you make a mistake?
@Butcher Bird she better learn individual sovereignty first.
@Butcher Bird noone needs anything from. The state masqaurading as a corporation (borrowed names or borrowed dates of birth)
@Butcher Bird what is (your definition of) irrational?
@Butcher Bird noone or no one...or nobody... Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it is gibberish. The borrowed names are used by incompetent beings as if it was not borrowed. I can create myself some name. I don't need to use borrowed ones. I don't need to be A member of the same society or SOCIETY as you. How irrational is that? Instead of member I would say imposed beneficiary. Get your Vaccination.
There is.
No such term as sovereign citizen that isn't oxymoron.You cannot be sovereign and be a citizen that does not work
I am searching for some sovereign citizens videos.
I'm a producer for a channel that debunks them right along with cop watchers and frauditors, Moores etc..
I am happy that I came across your Channel!!💖💖
I'm an extreme Law/Crime nerd! Lol
Not a lawyer just a law nerd!
Glad to have you as a fan, Jennifer. 😉Please post a link to your channel; I’d love to check it out.
@@coimbralaw well I produce for the channel that I'm talking about in that channel is "KFARR" moderate for about 25 channels or more also so I will be dropping your link to get your numbers boosted because I love that part of what I do.
Are you familiar with any of the other channels?
Vilified Freedom is my other channel.
I already have your Channel link ready to go to be dropped!
If you want it worded differently just let me know.
Now the link will show up scrambled here because I am moderator but you will get the important part which is the wording.
If you want it worded any other way let me know! 💪💪💖💖
@@jenniferkline4196 o cool. thanks
I'm not a moderator so I would not be able to post a link here but you can go look at the channel it's call
KFARR
The only people who can never drop links in the comment section or any live streams/premieres would be a moderator you would choose on your Channel 💖
They can ALWAYS be trespassed from ANYWHERE they're not welcome. Every time a frauditor leaves a facility when he's good and ready, without a trespass, the police and property adminstration have been feckless, castrated CUCKS. Being unwelcome is all the reason in the world for somebody to have to leave. Also, as long as a sign is posted that says "No Photography", there is no overriding Constitutional Right. Policy is as good as law.
It amazes me how many police and building officials don't know the Sheets/Punta Gorda ruling which established the precedent that Public Sector employees have all the right to throw out human garbage as their counterparts in the Private Sector.
There is ACTUALLY NO LEGAL LOOPHOLE that allows somebody to remain on Public Sector property if they're not welcome. Again, the only reason so-called "First Amendment auditors" are allowed to remain on the property filming after being told to leave is that the cops have no balls and the administrators of the property have no balls. They let these subhuman parasites bamboozle them into thinking there's going to be a civil rights lawsuit. That or the cops are too lazy for to do a slew of paperwork for a misdemeanor.
I am quite happy, however, with the trend I've seen on Frauditor channels of police and/or DAs ignoring crimes where the victim is a First Amendment frauditor. Charges against the Synagogue security guard who shot "Furry Potato" were dropped. Charges were dropped on the business proprietor who destroyed SLO County's Cannon HD camera. He broke the camera because SLO County Observer refused to explain why he was filming his business. Blind Justice was locked into a maintenance yard after he failed to leave a utility business when so instructed. That was out-and-out KIDNAPPING and the police he always insulted decided not to do anything about felony kidnapping because they didn't like Blind Justice.
Social Mores trump individual rights and the police and DAs are ignoring crimes committed against rude, condescending victims who bring their victimization upon themselves. And the two frauditors who died of drug overdoses, GOOD! More should follow suit.The life of anybody who thinks their individualism trumps their obligation to society SHOULD BE forfeit.
I'm not a person, I just a "life form".
i've known some so called females that were nothing more than vaginal life support systems, but that is a story for another day
But if they follow your advice, there won't be any more hilarious videos of them trying this shit in court! Then what will we do?
😂😂😂
@@rekskadinger8673 You’re fucking stupid.
factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-legislation-passed-in-1871-make
Maybe your watching the wrong videos brother...ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
@@rekskadinger8673 your right and this video proves we all need to step up and claim our natural birth right. Ernie blows this judge out of the water.ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
@@rekskadinger8673 well you obviously are well read on the subject to cause the judge to leave her court room.
Can you or better yet, I'd like to learn more ,to remove myself from the contract with soc.security etc but have no idea where to start or how to come about this valuable info . Any help well I'd be very grateful. In advance thanks !
If there weren't any Sovereign citizens who would we laugh at?
There is always flat-earthers and young-earth creationists.
Trump.
Wow. I stand corrected.
@@harlow7710 Scientologists. Auditors that don't understand how to audit properly
@@tekcomputers and Amway salesmen
They see all of life as football, and they're trying a wacky trick play on every down.
Ah, the ol 'mention something relatable' tactic. Well played, Shiller. Considering the majority of amerikans (the target audience for internet disinformation agents) are small-minded enough to be fans of football, your comment is certainly appealing! Bravo!
@@mickeywicked478 You’re still stuck in “slave thinking”.
@@strnglhld I was never stuck in “slave thinking”. I’m not a slave.
One guy does a sovereign citizen bingo very funny to watch.
Donut Operator! The other "bingo" games he plays are hilarious also
The worst is when one one of these people manages to get what they want or get a case dismissed because either they're so annoying and obstinate that the official stops fighting just to make them go away, OR they persist long enough for someone else to make a mistake (like a cop not showing up to testify). They then take this as evidence that their BS "works" which further entrenches the SC's beliefs.
Of course to get there, they usually spent so much time, effort, perhaps money, and sometimes other costs like having to spend some time in jail, that most normal people would not consider it worth it at all. But to them it's a victory.
The police and courts need to take a zero-tolerance policy with SCs.
The word sovereign citizen. Is an oxymoron. I'm neither ox nor a moron. Also. Those who are working in government positions of office authority. Or. Sovereign citizens. For they are in an office of emolument, in which we. The sovereign people pay them.
I've stayed grounded in the law....I've read and studied the unconstitutional statutes, codes, regulations and ordinances. It all has to do with your standing....who you are. Are you the government created fiction....??? Or the living breathing natural human being....??? If your the fiction....your guilty Everytime all time. If your the natural human being....you do not even belong in court. Not what's called court today. Your in an Admiralty Maritime Commercial Jurisdiction. The laws of Admiralty, The laws of the Seas. Beginning with Clerks Praxis.....an ending in Socialism / Communism. Which is where we are at today. In a bankrupt for profit debtor corporation called the United States. Along with the 50 States. You have to understand contract law. All contracts are in commerce. All commerce is contracts. Do not consent to anything and they stick the debt or "charge" upon someone else. Do you know that a DA is required to carry his check book into the court room. Because if they cannot stick you with the liability....and thus become the surety for the debt....The DA pays. Then the shit really gets interesting. They will try to throw contempt of court charges at you for being belligerent...even if your not. Contempt is the only thing they can charge you with. You simply ask " as a matter of law, what are the nature of these charges".....??? They have to tell you....it's going to be something bogus anyway. Just to rattle you and throw off your concentration. All charges must have a statute that they fall under and a statement of when and where this violation occurred. It's fraud ...pure and simple. From there you have a few options. Point to the bailiff who's armed and ask are you a duly sworn law enforcement officer. Then their name. Ask if they have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. Announce that they are now working for you. point to the Luciferian wearing the Black robes of Saturnalia worship and the Agent for the state....the DA. And announce that you want both arrested for their fraud against all laws. You DEMAND IT. I f they say they want a Psyche eval done on you....you do not consent. You do not consent to any offer, order, or demand from an unconstitutional Admiralty, Maritime , Commercial Jurisdiction. They are all offers any way....Offers of acceptance. You accept the offer now you have just contracted with them....and now your fucked. And not in a good way. You want to discharge the debt. So just write an I O U .....I OWE THIS COURT $1,000,000 for the charge of bullshit and fraud AND SIGN IT. Your signature is worth everything. And that's what they are after anyway is money. When you go to a bank. Banks do not lend you other peoples money for a loan you want to take out. That's illegal under the banking regulations acts. They create money out of thin air. Well they actually create it off your signature. A court can do the same exact thing. You conditionally accept the charge for value. Write your I O U sign it ...hand it to the DA....or Clerk of Courts
Please do me a favor. Commit some minor offense and get arrested for it. When you go to court, be sure to video all your interactions with the court, where you can show off the power of all your arguments. I for one very much look forward to seeing the video.
I guess you suggest everyone bend over, hire an attorney, pay him $300 an hour, & pay them for 50 hours of research (research they don't even do). They take 1/3 of your SUFFERING $$$ (settlement) without even going to court. So even if you win you lose anyway. The judge takes an oath to the government, your lawyer takes an oath to the court, the prosecutor takes an oath to the court and wants to find you guilty whether you are or not. They are all members of the BAR. All of them play games with peoples lives. They don't care about anything but money. People who've had their bodies damaged permanently by others & suffer severe pain in addition, are forced into an unfair system of justice. A+ rated insurance hires the BEST attorneys and will stall and fight until they BEAT YOU DOWN & go into financial AND physical ruin. either way. They just want to win. Sorry, I never had a problem with an attorney until I needed one. Will never hire one again.
I'll file a lawsuit by myself and take my amputated, bloody body part into a pickled jar as a witness.
You haven't done shit, Brian! You know absolutely NOTHING about ANYTHING, boy!
Dude... having watched enough of these sov cit court videos, it's clear their goal is to annoy the courts and tie up law enforcement with the broader goal of behavior modification. IE.. don't bother pulling that guy over... it's just going to lead to a big waste of time.
Until judges start charging for court time for guys who do this, there will be enough of these morons continuing to do this.
The reason why they don't want to hire you is that costs them money. They are tying up the courts on a traffic violation... not a murder charge.
@@mickeywicked478 Specifically what laws are "bogus?" If you are going to drive on the roads, you should prove competency and that's with a license. If you drive outside the rules of those roads, there has to be a mechanism in place to keep you off the roads before you hurt or kill someone, and that's revoking that license. If you are going to drive on those roads, I (and the rest of society) wants to know you have the financial means to pay for damage you cause (insurance). If you don't have insurance or assets, what is my remedy with you for the damage you cause?
Example... if you rammed into my car and totaled it... and hurt/killed my wife... and you had no insurance, would I be right in pulling out a gun and kill you? Or would you THEN expect the police to protect YOU with those "bogus laws?"
@@jcjbike If I accidentally killed your wife and you purposely killed me, you’re wrong. I don’t expect any laws to protect me, bud, I can protect myself.
No matter how you cut the cake, there’s validity to this sovereign citizen stuff...NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DON’T LIKE IT 😊
@@mickeywicked478 Having a gun and living within a society where you never have to use it is a lot different than a lawless society that you are advocating for. We had that in the wild west days and people demanded some kind of order be established. You clearly prefer the benefits of an organized society or you'd move to El Salvador or Somalia. To your point... there is no "validity" to lawlessness and judging by the kind of people I see pulling the sov cit BS, most of them wouldn't last in a lawless society very long. So I will keep enjoying videos of sov cits getting tazed and moaning in pain and they get 10,000 volts of "you are an utter moron" shot into their bodies.
@@mickeywicked478 ua-cam.com/video/2O1Mhkq3I5E/v-deo.html
This seems like it might be you.
Demetrius... you can live your "private life" in your home. But when you choose to go out on publicly funded roads in a machine that weights 3,000+ pounds and can reach speeds of 70+ mph, you had better be able to show you know how to operate it safely and you had better operate it safely.
We are all here a very short period of time. If you want to believe some guy on the internet is telling you, you don't need a license to drive, that's your call and you must live with those consequences. There are tons of videos on youtube that show sov citizen failures.. (ie. broken windows, towed cars, tazers, contempt of court... etc.)
Good luck with that fantasy world you are living in... it must bring you a great deal of "thrill" knowing that whenever you go out on the roads, you risk getting ticketed and/or arrested.
It comes down to this for me... so long as there is no injured party... gov gains its authority from me thru my consent. If I do not consent. I am not of subject status. I do not take a position of domicile with in their jurisdiction. oh but then they say you pay texes yes or you have a birth certificate yes? ...yes... all under duress and if i am not mistaken a contract requires a meeting of minds to make the contract legitimate. How as a new born was i am to give such consent. Ultimately I find Common law courts are where i win. Admiralty law courts, which most all courts are, is where i lose. Thank good lord JEsus for Appeals lol
I am two beings. One A flesh blood and spirit sovereign part of a republic. (Freeman) Two, A fictitious paper-bodied subject belonging to a corporate democracy. (Slave)
@Harry Knows no hes on point
@Harry Knows How is Cory not right?
Pretty simple concept are you alive or are you a fictitious entity ?
Obviously you aren't smart enough to get a simple concept so your response is with an acronym...good job
You only have jurisdiction over humans, but I'm not human. I'm a Binary Life Form ... !!!
The SovCits won't pay any attention to any of your arguments. You're wasting your time.
@@rekskadinger8673 The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. It basically set up a new government for the District of Columbia. And that's all. Got nothing to do with anything else.
You may want to rescind that ,as Ernie takes the judge to task and makes her give up in court. Brilliant stuff.ua-cam.com/video/_LwR0c-CE5g/v-deo.html
The fundamental problem I find with the criminal system is that if search and seizure law says "probable cause" in the constitution, and we arrive at the point that an arrest is a seizure of the person, it then finds that the term "probable cause" needs to be given a direct and distinct constitutional meaning if we are to follow a "strict constructionist" view in the fashion of J. Scalia (strict constructionist theory is the basic theory that the United States constitution Means exactly what it says as the framers intended, nothing more nothing less.) To bring what I'm talking about home: I've seen citizen's arrest cases be denied on the basis of lack of "probable cause" with an identical case being presented by a police officer with the court giving the exact opposite ruling with complete and utter disregard to stare decisis with respect to rulings in the same court before the same judge, to the extent of direct contradiction from case to case.
In short, the constitutional legal theory needs to be less vague, less of a case-by-case basis mentality, and more of a distinct and absolute doctrine that is not to be altered under any circumstance, regardless of emotion or political inclination. (for example- I find no reason to believe the framers of the constitution intended a "convicted felon" exception to the second amendment on the basis of the fact that the text has ZERO limiting language combined with the fact that the constitution uses the phrase "high crimes" in several other places, meaning that the framers were well acquainted with the concept of a "felony" at the time. ergo, because we must assume that the framers deliberately left out any limiting clause, we cannot simply "insert" that language into the constitution without an amendment to the text. This is especially true given D.C. v. Heller, which stated that the second amendment is rooted in the fundamental right to self defense.)
We also need to amend the government structure to remove "prosecutorial discretion" from the government's arsenal. If a crime has been committed then the individual whom committed it needs to pay the consequences without regard for political factors or any other factors save the facts of the case and what the law is. (it is neither the executive nor judicial prerogative, nor is it their business, to fix the legislature's problems.) This in turn, would result in law enforcement being held accountable for their misdeeds under statutes like 18 USC 242 and to a lesser degree 18 USC 241 - laws which are very rarely enforced because of the fact that prosecutors don't like prosecuting police officers for their crimes.
@@freeinhabitant2422Here's all we need to know about the sovereign citizen sham. www.hg.org/legal-articles/are-sovereign-citizen-groups-right-35156
"Any man who would represent himself in court has a fool for a client". Even lawyers wouldn't represent themselves.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily Bar is not an acronym. "Bar" refers to a literal railing that was in the 16th century Inns of Court.
Anyway, if you willingly walk into court without a lawyer, you might as well step into The Octagon with Daniel Cormier, you'll have the same odds of making it out in one piece.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily yeah, and you're the UFC Light Heavyweight champ.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily there is no British Statue in The United States of America.
There's certainly British common law and jurisprudence, however.
Lawyers understand the most important reason not to go pro se: A good attorney maintains a professional distance from the case so as to look at it dispassionately and exercise good judgment about how to proceed. That's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, actually -- to maintain when it's your own personal case.
Any man who wouldn't defend himself is a coward.
Thanks for this. I'm trying to show my friend he has bought some magic beans.
Yeah let's get it straight though. Hardly ANY so-called "Sovereign Citizen" OFFICIALLY became sovereign because there's LEGAL STEPS TO IT. If Washington or the Secretary of The State isn't involved in the process...no sovereign has standing in ANY court...no matter how "right" they are. And ANYINE saying there is no process or any way to step out of Maritime Law and become a Legally recognized Sovereign is a FRAUD no matter your degree or experience. But even if you legally went through the steps and have been verified, you can slip back into maritime if you're not careful. If you're careful, you have standing EVERY TIME. Now the courts CAN IGNORE your "legal sovereignty". But that doesn't mean they're not liable for it for the REST of their lives. Any violation of your legality can lead to terrible consequences...and all involved.
i fell into it (6 years and counting). anyone willing to assist me out? ... i cant do it alone (currently) on the fact that some of the arguments (not the general ones) hold water, that and i have evidence from the horses mouth (publications).
[as i read and interpret to the best of my ability it appears that its not so much the arguments themselves but the application. thats not to say a "Sovereign Citizen is a real thing -- its not. nor is it to say "jurisdiction" is lacking all the time if at all. YES a lot of it is fringe and idiotic (waste of time even), but without it, i wouldnt have come to know (truly) what i know now. 1933 was a major year or the beginning of a major century. War powers through executive orders etc. the "sovereign" arguments presented today, the roots of those arguments were argued in past, some left for future to decide, others decided and forgotten. ]
i admit. i am one of those dumbasses. or at least thats how i started. please dont think me the same but i do struggle to abandon my old ways if you know what i mean. i simply ask for a mentor, one that is as blunt and to the point as possible with room for theory (for dismissal).
they wont consent to joinder for the record how can u help them
Every 'sovereign citizen' should watch this. But they're all too arrogant/ignorant. Dunning-Kruger...
There are an amazing number of delusional people making comments here....
I just skimmed the comments and came across two total pro-sovereign citizen comments...so I'm going to go ahead and agree with your comment that anti-sovereign citizens are delusional.
@@mickeywicked478 Luckily Reality...facts and the decisions of the courts are not conditional on your acceptance of them...No one is going to waste much time or energy trying to convince you that fire is hot & water wet...
I have indeed seen people trying to tell the judge..."You Can't Tell Me What To Do!"...And even one true believer ...."You can imprison my my body!...But you will never imprison My Spirit!"...
You do have a Right To Be Wrong!
@@stevebell4906 It's all about terminology and consent...meaning if you show up to court (ie "consent"), you'd better know your terminology. "You can't tell me what to do" are words that would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS come out of the mouth of an educated person, ya silly-billy! Nice, uh, straw man XD
There exists not even the SHADOW of a doubt that there is something very fucky going on in the US...breaking down the ANGULAR words used in legal/government documents ONLY leads to liberation :)
@@mickeywicked478 Tell it to the judge!....Yes I know that there are perhaps millions or you...and every day I am thankful for you...Stupid and silly people have provided me and mine with an income and a comfortable retirement...and yes tons of incarcerated people will agree with you!
Funny when ever one of you silly whiny boys hiding behind a bullshit name from mom's basement tries to talk in circles...
@@stevebell4906 BLAH BLAH BLAH 🤪
Chances are you’re a shill, arguing with you’d be like arguing with a wall. And if you aren’t a shill, you’re a lawyer...which means when you were called to the bar, you swore an oath..an allegiance to the fucky ones. I wouldn’t trust a thing that comes out of your mouth.
The PROOF that there’s a truth worth smearing is the FACT that for every 1 sovereign citizen, there’s hundreds of nameless, faceless accounts aggressively and mockingly insulting them.
Go ahead, skim the comments section on any one of these videos. They consist of 99.9% sovcit HATRED. They absolutely HATE them. What’d they key their car or something? They aren’t even speaking to someone in particular, they’re just typing their utter contempt for sovcits into the ether for the eyes of anyone trying to gain a better understanding of what the movement is about.
You’re an absolute clown (if not a shillbag or a lawyer...same difference, I digress) if you see the comments sections and think that those are just regular people with regular people opinions. Clearly there’s an agenda. Clearly.
Its very difficult to represent ones self in criminal court these days....or "pro se" litigants. The simple truth is....is that most courts havr set up local rules that prevent anyone from representing themselves. This guy obviously does not know what the hell hes talking about. Only those that have been there....such as myself know. Congress has never inacted any law requiring one to be an attorney to practice law. However....round about 1871 " the american attorneys communist guild " was established. This not something i made up....its absolutely true. Requiring that anyone practicing the law must be a member of the guild and also possess a degree in law and a membership to the British Accredited Regency.....the B.A.R........Its not just a good old boys club for attorneys.....no its a bit more than that. Each member must swear an oath and allegiance to the British Crown......Hmmmmm can anyone say treason and sedition....???? And being officers of the court and agents for the state. How is it possible for anyone to receive adequate counsel in court...??? The Bible clearly states that no man can serve to masters....for he shall come to worship and idolize the one and despise and loathe the other. Thats what an attorney is today..... a Luciferian.....the reason for the rise of the sovereign movement and the so called paper terrorism becoming more prevalent is because common people have no justice in a system that is self serving.....no one stops to ask the question why is the sovereign movement taking off like wild fire....and why are people filing commercial liens on government officials....??? Brcsuse these people brlieve they are above the law......why do you think Hillary lost...??? No one trusted her. These people just dont get it. When you push a people far enough then violence is all but unavoidable....and we are quickly approaching that here in the united states. When so called government officials use unconstitutional statutes codes regulations and ordinances to destroy the lives of ordinary citizens and the right of a redress of grievances has been undermined and perverted. Then thr only thing left is to begin targeted asassinations of these rogue officials and there entire families
You need to do a bunch of homework!
I've done my home work....7 years worth in state prison. I've studied many of the teachings of supreme Court judge Dale. You need to wake up from the Jewish spell you have been placed under. And pull your head from your ass
That has to be one of the craziest things I have ever read. As a member of the Michigan Bar for 33 years I can tell you that neither I nor any other attorney I know has ever been a member of the 'British Accredited Regency" and/or sworn an oath of loyalty to the British crown. Where do you get this crap?
Brian...seven years in prison tells me that you didn't understand your homework...your other comment tells me you're a stupid assed bigot, whose head is so far up your ads that, you're looking out your own mouth when uttering your dumbassery.
@@rekskadinger8673 You unfortunately not only don't have the faintest idea what you're trying so hard about but you've also swallowed a whole pant load of Sovereign Citizen nonsense. That's all very cute but now the adults are talking. Go to your room.
You know who I feel sorry for? These poor court appointed attorneys the judge ties to these Sov Cits thinking they can represent themselves.
Can a ex felon become a sovereign citizen and getting rights back?
If sovcits had the intelligence and discipline to take this advice, they would not have gotten themselves into their legal case. It's a catch-22
What about the Insanity Plead? How effective is that?
Please tell me... What is the role, a citizen plays in a Republic compared to the role a citizen is allowed to play in a democracy?
Role of free person to a country vs. role of an economic slave to a corporation.
Corey Arms Okay. I’ll answer that. A democracy, strictly speaking, is a state where the eligible voters directly pass legislation. In ancient Athens, where Western democracy is generally considered to have started, that’s how it worked. In a Republic, eligible voters select representatives who then pass legislation. It’s not direct legislation. The executive branch works pretty much the same way under both, though.
@@atomicsquirrel6457 simply put democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what to have as dinner...mob rule
@@rekskadinger8673 You’re nuts.
Injury, harm and financial loss that is the law don't do these and your golden!
Every SovCit recites that belief. Being in violation of the law does not require that there be an injured party. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads without proper licensing & insurance, refusing to produce ID when pulled over, interfering with a police investigation, etc. has all resulted in SovCits being arrested
@@angeladansie4378 Respectfully, are you insane? The ENTIRE premise of any violation, is that you caused harm to someone. You HAVE to be able to understand that. In a traffic violation, the injured party is the STATE. In child support, the injured party is the child. There must be an "injured party" in order for there to be a controversy. The driving argument is simple. How can the STATE charge a person with something before anyone has been hurt? [insurance] If a person runs a stop sign; who is the injured party? You have to reach to "what could have happened." By running a red light, you could have.... The question becomes "what actually happened?" Sov/Cit is an oxymoron. The reason why they are made to look like idiots, is because they become S/C after being caught doing something that they themselves agreed they wouldn't do. You won't see a video or read a court case where it was done correctly. Because when it is done correctly; there is no need to go to court. THERE ALWAYS HAS TO BE AN INJURED PARTY!!! The argument is [for S/C] is; "How can a living man cause harm to a fictitious entity?"
@@crownroyal2248 You'll notice that "Angela" never responded. That's because "Angela" is most likely a facade, a disinformation shill sent by TPTB to smear the truth. They tend to ignore the replies of the well-educated. You nailed it and because of that, "Angela" didn't bother to engage you, after all, shills don't get paid to look stupid.
If you didn't charge $300 an hour, people may be more willing to hire you.
@@rekskadinger8673 Idiot.
@@alxmnslv idiot in the 2nd degree
@@rekskadinger8673 Nope, statutory means by statute. Those statutes were enacted by American founders and those who came later, after they became independent from Britian. Reading one sentence of a history book does not make you informed, it makes you a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@rekskadinger8673 Surely you aren't conflating statues and statutes. You aren't ruled by Rome or Britian, we just have similar laws since our country is closely tied to both through heritage. Why not point out something specific instead of speaking in large generalities? When you are specific, it is easy to refute your claims, that is why most people who make these declarations will stick to ideas instead of making actual claims of fact. Or hinge their entire argument on the root of a word, and either be wrong about that root or ignore the other way it is used. Is 33% the magic number where any awareness over that and they become conspiracy theorists? What about 32.5%? Are they missing out on so much that they still won't understand most of what the 33% will? Or is it just an arbitrary number that someone picked out of the blue because the number 33 has some significance for conspiracy theorists? Yep, figured it was the latter.
Just give one specific claim with evidence to back it up.
@@rekskadinger8673 Imagine typing that with a straight face... a degree isn't a measurement of vibration. I notice you didn't have any specific claims... weird.
Weird camera angle
Hey could. You please help me. Out w a bit of non biased advice ?
The real issue is that you are located "In the United States". Your driver's license and all minimal contacts prove residence. Until this is defeated you are not Sovereign. Read the Law of Nations if you don't think I'm right lol 😂🤣
and the Law of Nations has no bearing in the USA
Tell me more please sir ?
Not for my case, I say I'm a foreigners seeking passage, they bury me, the judge says I need either a public defense attorney or a hired lawyer. Of course the moment I'm in their ring, they persecute me with one hand defend me with another and judge me all at the same time. How can the creator stand for this, will the creator of earth go along with whatever they concoct in court these days? He wont hire attorneys licensed by the government bar. Of course many sovereign beings are feeling that those that sit in high places on the heads of others, put themselves there. It's not a fair fight, and what is the point of experiencing reality like a slave without wanting better.
There's a variation of this Sovereign Citizen thing in Canada and I don't really get it. What do these people want ... we' already let them have as much freedom as just about anywhere in the world.... yet when they are arrested they pull out the Sovereign gag and it works as badly here as in the US. The only possible Sovereigns are native people and they would have ID to prove their native status. UA-cam law degrees are worth a little less than they cost.
That's one thing a lot of simple-minded people don't get: In court it's not about whether your argument is right or makes sense. It's about which argument will get you the best outcome.
More specifically, it is not the argument that makes the most sense to you. You are already convinced. Nor does the court have to convince you that they are right. You have to convince the court that you are right, according to their actual rules, not their rules as you think they should be.
Not a lawyer nor have I ever been but seen this same phenomenon far too often as an accountant, with respect to tax law, people insisting that the tax system must work the way they think it should work
If I don't associate my Self with the ALL CAPS version of my name, the hearing literally cannot proceed. Lol stop being an ignoramus.
@@mickeywicked478 According to what law or precedent, exactly? Since these proceedings do actually proceed, you would seem to be literally incorrect.
@@nctpti2073 I’m gonna stop ya right there hun, I owe you nothing. I’m not obligated to answer your questions and so I won’t. You can call it dodging, I call it not respecting women enough to entertain their silliness even on the internet. You don’t have to like it, I’m perfectly fine with me. What say you?
@@mickeywicked478 I say that I am male, you idiot. It is a common mistake based on my name, but I am fully and biologically male. Not that gender of someone has any bearing on whether anything they say is factual or not...
You do not have to like anything I say, either, of course, but likewise, whether you like it or not does not make it less factual.
Are you related to the actor Taylor Negron?
Sir, why do you not just say the US code is hyperbole?And fraudulent, and it does not stand for anything.Why not just tell the people right out loud?That rules code statutes and ordinances are law and that the supreme court holds no Bearing upon the people of the united states
He's coming from the perspective of a defendant. But what if you are not a defendant? Or what if there is no harmed party?
The notion that there has to be a harmed party for someone to get convicted of a crime is one of the fundamental errors in sovcit "philosophy". Many people use it to justify driving under the influence, basically saying "hey, I was lucky enough not to kill anyone while I was driving my truck blackout drunk, so what's the problem?" The law doesn't work like that.
The Sovereign citizen is a media/gov coined term. The phrase is an oxymoronic term. Sovereignty "itself" is factually resolved to rest with the people in Chisholm vs Georgia about a decade prior to Marbury vs Madison. Anyway, a pro-se, in propia persona, "SC" arguments fail from inability& inexperience in court and they just acquiesce. A learned "sovereign" will not argue or operate in controversy. They will stand on their position & Question, but never engage in meritless arguments to put them in dishonor. Yet, stay in honor at every turn as it is the honor/dishonor system that will likely determine a fail.
I’m dealing with a family member who falls for this and every other bottom of the barrel conspiracy theory. I really wanna know how to combat this cuz they don’t listen to logic and believe everything they see online. My friends landlord also fell for this and gave some guy 30k just for the guy to tell him mortgages aren’t real so he doesn’t have to pay. He almost lost the building. If any of these people used any critical thought they’d realize none of this makes sense.
My fav abraham Lincoln quote. A man who solely represents himself in court has a fool for council.
No, it's "a fool for a client".
Solid bro...
Agree 100% good advice, not that the nutters would think so.
@@rekskadinger8673 Ok buddy. Why don’t you go punch a cop, try this defense in court, and see where it gets you.
@@rekskadinger8673 Bruh your whole Organic Act argument centers on the term “municipal corporation” just refers to a city or town government and its officials. It’s literally in the dictionary.
You’ve bought into a disproven conspiracy theory. Maybe rethink your life?
Can you fucking way UH MORE PLEASE!!!!????? If you are going to make a video and speak learn how to not make every other fucking sylable UH!!! Fucking shit!!
Yep. I'm sick of inarticulate uploaders. You ever heard that content creator called "Chills"? He has a PATHETIC speech pathology which fails to inflect the correct syllables of words. He pitches questions like statements and statements like exclamations....and I'm sorry but Issac Arthur needs somebody else to read his scripts. I'm tired of hearing him talking about "The Maws Wover" (Mars Rover) and "Travel between Uuth and Maws".
Also, when interacting with police, low income public housing denizens lack the diction and vocabulary to voice their objections. "Why Yoon be at my how knockin' on my doe?" "I bomba da moo moo we main silent. Ar gargle a fly boon skippy doo speak to you supa visa". "Gum bat wit a warrant". "You arressin' me becaw mime black"
yt assistance for those new to this, lacking comprehension...
Redress Right
Trust In All Law
You Are Law
(and then: now go learn The 9th Amendment)
Road to 3k?
Actually of you do you homework rather than make fun of people who have a certain viewpoint you would see much of what they say is true.. that does not mean it works but that's a different story
if it doesn’t work, then it’s not true
@@DocBree13 What a ridiculous thing to say.
What about all parties are not presenting them selves in legal matters in their full legal name. Say using a fictional name example Jerry Tom Clark compared to Jerry T. Clark. Not full legal name?
Can someone explain this?
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. Case #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property there on, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . Incidentally: Drivers licenses are not required by federal law. They are required by state laws.) Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver's license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle. Pursuant to the 10th Amendment all 50 states have seen fit to enact their own traffic codes.
????????? I AM NOT one of these sovereign people
IT is important to note that the right to travel in the constitutional sense is the right to travel between states, states themselves can regulate vehicular travel as a public safety concern, as there is a vested interest in ensuring competence levels of drivers operating in a public area equally accessible to others.
You are quoting part of the SCOTUS decision from Thompson v. Smith that sovcits frequently like to cite;
"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 problem being, what is quoted in there is PART of the decision, NOT the whole decision, if you continue reading the decision:
" The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L. R. A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942.
[7, 8] The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. "
The case in Thompson v. Smith is where the locality had gave the local magistrate discretionary power to grant and revoke at will with no guidance in policy. That is, the government could act on a whim. This is what made the court rule against the locality and for the citizen in this situation. But their decision did not grant people the right to "travel without license" in the sense of being able to operate a vehicle without license, it simply ruled that the government cannot grant or revoke on a whim, but rather that it can license for public safety reasons, and the granting or revoking must be by uniform standards.
Sovcits simply stop at that one paragraph in the decision because they can use it out of context to make it appear like the law sides with them, when it does not. It is simply a quote mine fallacy.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily it is out of context.
Here's the rest of the citation from Thompson v Smith:
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily I'm not concerned with what Harvard is teaching, and I don't know why you should be.
Laws are not contingent on dictionaries and textbooks, they're derived from statues and case law.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily how can statutes be unconstitutional if The Constitution itself had to be ratified by legislatures that you insist are unconstitutional?
Sit in a dark place and think about that one, Mr. Joshua Pitts.
JoshuaAllenof thePittsFamily why did the Constitution have to be ratified by illegitimate bodies.
2nd time I'm asking.
Yusef El
You're wrong. I went in said you have no jurisdiction and beat them five tickets. Maybe you should practice.
@Frank Trocha [citation needed]
The process is not law
"concepts" are very important. . So at least common law is a "living history", that protest`s! a right that goes back to the Magna Carta. . Iff I may say, , a sence of being that come`s from being an Island race! micro/ macro. . Iff common law was not helping to point out law, for sure U sir would not an could not teach it!! . . only!? corporatocracy rules today. .
You must be a SovCit. Your incoherent, rambling statement is perfect SocCit language
@@angeladansie4378 please.. whats a sovcit?? ... my interests is also with that of the 1st nation people/ original tribes, , also forest law, an brehon law.. sounds like u might have a problem with those also ??? or have u a problem with herstory!!
Where is the COMPLIANTENT?
The word is "Complainant".
Growing up I learned law by reading law books and having lawyers and judges tutor me.
When I was 13 I represented injustices. The judge was one that helped tutor me.
Several times I had to represent myself. Once for a felony, where my ex framed me. There was loads of evidence and the dfac worker and detective both broke laws.
A true lawyer spent years learning. Not just any one has the ability to be a lawyer.
If you value your freedom always talk to a lawyer before doing something stupid..
Lawyer/Liar, what's the difference? You swore an oath to TPTB, if you were called to the bar...
You cant fix stupid. Let these people continue on their inevitable path to jail as the videos they establish are entertaining. The fact they continue to rant and rave when their tactics continually fail only reveals that these people are incompatible of learning from their own mistakes.
You've literally NEVER seen a sovcit (an educated one) get thrown in jail. Plus I see you all over these video comments sections. You're a paid disinformation agent.
I work in law and see SovCits fail miserably because they think this is 1600 America. I find it humorous when they play the "jurisdiction" card and wanting to sue the court for some odd reason. As for you, I'm also a Los Angeles native. Knowing every police department and all city halls/courthouses. Let's say we get a SovCit doing this over at the Santa Monica Courthouse and he or she pulls that "jurisdiction" game. First off, you're in the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Monica inside the confines of the Los Angeles County by the state of California if I'm correct. Every state has them. SovCits just lack proper education of our American history and the laws that got built, but do kinda blame the failed educational system but also blame the failure students in those schools for not even try to learn anything. Henceforth all the SJW's, feminism and these SovCits, they all lack common sense and common logic. Always ignoring the truth. These people need to be accounted for and to accept their responsibilities for their ill-quitted actions and whatever consequences deem into a dire situation. Don't be dumb to fight it because that will humiliate yourself any further, what's going to happen if they pulled that crap inside a supreme or federal court? They won't be going home from that point.
That's great are you a craft practicing masonic Lodge member(witchcraft ) did they wave a sword in front of you on your stubbies😂 if you don't go in to court and claim to be binaficial equatable title holder of the named trust, then your soul(strawman) can burn in hell. So I can care less if they think I look stupid and want to continue robbing innocent slaves to feed and house me they are the idiots 80,% of people in jail have no victim great job law enforcement(thieves)all you are is organized crime not fooling anyone. Why don't you feel safe with your guns always wanting to groope us?
Don't get a lawyer it's cheaper to plead guilty.
You're presentation is very, very dull.
I mean, it's not breaking driver's side windows, but it's pretty informative.
You're correct. We really need Professor Hulk to explain this, so every one can understand.
*your
He is imparting information. Go watch cartoons if your attention span is so abysmally deficient
Awareness of our INDIVIDUAL Sovereignty appears important right now as
part of the greater enlightenment process that is taking place... Check out the
SOVEREIGN SANITY SERIES VIDEOS
on youtube ; )
Real Facts..................can the Libs Handle it ?!
Uhh. You think Trump is helping this country. Case closed on you and facts.
???
You guys can't handle the fact that Trump lost in 2020 even after CONSERVATIVE judges who would prefer a GOP White House couldn't find any reason to throw out the results.
Sovcits are the kind of people that love Donald Trump.