BSM1
What? Me worry?
You should never answer any question without a lawyer present. Sounds crazy but they can twist your answer like a ballpark pretzel.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law
- Thread starter YmirGF
- Start date
You should never answer any question without a lawyer present. Sounds crazy but they can twist your answer like a ballpark pretzel.
My question is mainly, "Where on earth are these people getting the idea that this sort of action is reasonable or that it is a good idea to obstruct police in this way?"
As I said, they all chant the same drivel. My personal favorite is telling the police, "I do not consent!"
Yep, they really care if you want to be searched.LOL.
Any comments? @Revoltingest @Nous
The first time I heard of this was back in the early 1990s, when I was a volunteer at the local public access cable station. One guy was there and said that as long as one files a legal writ (which I don't remember exactly what it said), it has to be recognized by the government. I don't remember all the details, but he said it was a principle of common law. Part of it had to do with a demonstration that the US was not actually under common law, but under admiralty law, which means that we're secretly ruled by the military. He pointed out that whenever you go into a courtroom and see a flag with gold fringe around it, it means that it's a military flag and that it's actually a military court.
(I remember hearing of a court case where a defendant requested that the judge switch the flag from one with gold fringe to a flag without gold fringe, and the judge refused to do so. This was offered as "proof" that the US was under admiralty/military law, since the judge was somehow forbidden to switch the flag.)
The whole thing was supposedly an exercise to prove that the US was not really a free country, but under martial law. The implication was that if we weren't under military law, cops wouldn't have the right to pull people over and ask for driver's licenses. He used as he legal reference a book from the 1970s called "You and the Law." He also cited some things from the Uniform Commercial Code, a lot of legalese which I (as a non-lawyer) didn't really understand. I've seen another guy in the same circle stamp his money with the phrase "released with prejudice" and had some UCC code number next to it.
He also often emphasized the term "under duress," so that if you sign your driver's license and add the phrase "under duress," it somehow exempts the individual from whatever laws require you to hold a driver's license.
I don't understand it myself; I've never tried to become a sovereign citizen. I once asked my mother (who was a legal secretary at one time) if any of her bosses ever heard of anything like that or if there's some legal basis to it. I imagine there must be some loophole or something somewhere. It's not just from the Articles of Confederation, though. I've heard the 14th amendment cited, which some interpreted as meaning that one's citizenship is of the United States, which somehow exempts one from state citizenship or state laws.
The idea is that when the police and courts don't recognize sovereign citizenship, that they're being corrupt and trying to deceive or con the public into going along with military law, which is what (they believe) we live under, not any "common law." I've heard "English common law" (used in the Anglosphere) contrasted with "Napoleonic Code," which is what they use in Mexico and many European countries.
To be honest, I don't know what to think, and I've never actually done much research into this myself. I would like to know if there's some validity to this; perhaps a legal scholar might be able to explain if the government has the right to exempt itself from "common law" or whether we're using "Napoleonic Code" or "military law." It may go back to the principles of the Founders who believed that "rights" come from God and not just because the government says we have "rights." What is a "right" and why do you have them? I've heard that a "right" is actually a "claim" - not something the government "gives" us.
All I really know is, if a man with a badge and a gun gives me an order, I'd do well to follow it. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess.
My only real political concern is that the government have the best interests of the collective whole at heart. I'm more of a statist anyway, and I believe that the collective benefit of the people is more important than individual rights, so I don't really have a dog in this whole "sovereign citizen" fight. But it seems like an interesting concept for legal scholars to hash out.
They're definitely warrior types of some kind.
This is good advice.
You can admit to your name & address though....that's usually safe.
Way to keep your cool and be respectful at the same time. Your exactly right to exercise your right to remain silent*. Answer the questions relevant to why you are being questioned and leave it at that. Although I would suggest the next time your asked that question in a similar circumstance you could reply "My wife and I was at a social event downtown". The details are not pertinent for the officer so being vague is acceptable.
*you still have the right to not incriminate yourself not under arrest.
The woman didn't cite any intrinsic or 'natural' right to travel. She cited a law, thereby tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of law. That left her vulnerable to legal interpretation of that and subsequent laws, which left her without a leg to stand on. Had she cited natural law or unalienable rights she might have had a stronger case.
The article she cited excluded paupers and vagabonds. Did she have enough money to qualify as a woman of means? Did her 'traveling' qualify as vagabondage (?)?
The officer might have some room for creative interpretation himself.
The article she cited excluded paupers and vagabonds. Did she have enough money to qualify as a woman of means? Did her 'traveling' qualify as vagabondage (?)?
The officer might have some room for creative interpretation himself.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Yes, I answered any question that pertained to the busted headlight.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Exactly. I thought about something like the "social event" angle, but I figured he would push it anyway no matter what I said.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Granted I'm only pushing 62 but with this behavior I have never had any difficulties with the police at any time in my life. Any interactions have always been cordial.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Youtube probably has a few conspiracy theory channels that push these.
Fool!
Did they use it against you to force you to snitch?
You'd be surprised how often that happens.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
No, but I believe the Pep Boys put a contract out on me.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Of course it has the right. That's the whole idea.
Common law is just judge-made law: going back far in the British legal tradition, judges would have to rule on issues that were outside of what the statute law at the time covered. The judge would make a ruling based on what was fair and other judges would take that precedent into account when making their own rulings until such time as the King or Parliament passed a law that dealt with the issue. That's all common law is: a long tradition of judges trying to decide what's fair and reasonable.
I remember the example of common law precedent that was used in my "law for engineers" class: a ship owner contracted with a dock owner to lease the dock for his ship. The dock owner had failed to mention that at low tide, there was no water at the dock. The ship owner demanded his money back and to be released from the contract, the dock owner refused, and the ship owner sued. When the case went to trial, the judge ruled that because the dock owner offered the dock for a specific purpose, the contract was predicated on the idea that the dock was fit for its intended purpose, and the fact that it wasn't fit meant that the dock owner had breached the agreement. This ruling formed part of the body of English common law and still sometimes gets cited in Canadian cases.
That's the sort of thing that common law addresses. It's a matter of judges saying, effectively, "okay, government - until you pass a law that says differently, here's how we'll handle it." It isn't "okay, government - we've made our ruling and now you can't pass any laws that go against it."
The idea of a law being "exempted" from common law doesn't even make sense, because common law is just what's used to decide issues that aren't addressed by statute law.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Some of us have seen this video taken from the parking lot, where it shows how they were dressed before they entered the police department. Your video conveniently edits out that one man was HEAVILY armed, wearing body armor and a ski mask. The other was highly confrontational and was filming. Your version of the video makes it sound like some camera crew from a local TV station just walked in while filming. It doesn't get more disingenuous than that.
Personally, I think the police handled the situation very well and quite appropriately especially given the bogus nature of the complaint they planned to make.
Last edited:
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I've seen all versions of it. I just found this to be funnier and the stupidest of all considering how dumb these idiots were. If this was LAPD or Sheriffs they'd be dead.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Ok, I get it. It does help tremendously to see how the morons entered the station though. It forewarns what utter imbeciles they were. I also agree they are extremely lucky that they were not shot down, let alone killed outright.
Open carry in Michiganistan is technically legal,
but not in reality. Cops typically do not allow it.
but not in reality. Cops typically do not allow it.