"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[beenherebeforeagain]

One more time, courts of law cannot accommodate an possible endless series of ridiculous demands. If someone wants to change something the burden of proof is upon him. You don't see the damage in endless unreasonable demands and you could not even explain why your own ridiculous example was any different from the gold fringe idiocy. If you can't defend your own unreasonable example you only underscore why the fringe claim is beyond fringey.

For the most part, I don't believe that judges decorate their courtrooms...whichever unit of government that has jurisdiction over the facility makes those decisions, based in part on the law.

For example, here in Illinnoying, the county boards are responsible for providing and outfitting the local courts. State law has some impact, especially concerning security and accessibility, but the county board uses its funds to buy whatever design they want to have, and decorate it as they decide. The judges are locally-elected employees of the state. They are welcome of course to make suggestions about decor, but unless it's specifically mandated or prohibited by law, it's not up to the judge.

A "sovereign" would maybe have more luck trying to convince the board to use flags without fringe...but I'm doubtful.

 

[Stevicus]

One more time, courts of law cannot accommodate an possible endless series of ridiculous demands. If someone wants to change something the burden of proof is upon him. You don't see the damage in endless unreasonable demands and you could not even explain why your own ridiculous example was any different from the gold fringe idiocy. If you can't defend your own unreasonable example you only underscore why the fringe claim is beyond fringey.

I already explained my position, most of which you declined to address and/or refute, dismissing it with throwaway one-liners and unnecessary invective. Now you're just repeating and rehashing the same arguments I have already refuted. And you say that I'm unreasonable? Physician, heal thyself.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I already explained my position, most of which you declined to address and/or refute, dismissing it with throwaway one-liners and unnecessary invective. Now you're just repeating and rehashing the same arguments I have already refuted. And you say that I'm unreasonable? Physician, heal thyself.

So, your argument is:

1) Because judges don't immediately jump up and replace the flags in their courtrooms to satisfy the groundless legal motion of a "sovereign" defendant...

2) It proves that the "sovereigns" are right, that the fringe means that the US is under martial law...

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Stevicus]

So, your argument is:

1) Because judges don't immediately jump up and replace the flags in their courtrooms to satisfy the groundless legal motion of a "sovereign" defendant...

2) It proves that the "sovereigns" are right, that the fringe means that the US is under martial law...

Yeah, that makes sense.

Strawman. You didn't read what I wrote, and now you're trying to restate in a way which is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already explained my position, most of which you declined to address and/or refute, dismissing it with throwaway one-liners and unnecessary invective. Now you're just repeating and rehashing the same arguments I have already refuted. And you say that I'm unreasonable? Physician, heal thyself.

Your argument was dealt with. It was extremely weak. And yes, now I am merely repeating myself. Don't blame me.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Strawman. You didn't read what I wrote, and now you're trying to restate in a way which is intellectually dishonest.

It's a strawman to argue that "If it's insignificant, why not change the flag to make the defendant happy."

You have provided no legal theory, nor any evidence, that your conspiracy theory is in any way anything other than nonsense. Other than saying, "because no one will humor these "sovereigns" it must be because their position must be true!"

Is you who are being intellectually dishonest here. Good day to you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But what difference should it make, especially if it's not legally important?

It wouldn't make any difference, legally, but do we let just anyone in court start demanding changes based on their whims?

 

[Stevicus]

Your argument was dealt with. It was extremely weak. And yes, now I am merely repeating myself. Don't blame me.

You didn't even come close to addressing anything that I said, other than what you assumed about my position. As I said, I'm a neutral bystander in this argument, merely pointing out some observations. If you don't like that, I'm sorry, but if you're unable to address the issue in earnest without all this invective, that's on you, not me.

 

[Stevicus]

It wouldn't make any difference, legally, but do we let just anyone in court start demanding changes based on their whims?

Why not? It's no skin off me. It may be ego-deflating for a judge, but who cares about judges?

 

[Stevicus]

It's a strawman to argue that "If it's insignificant, why not change the flag to make the defendant happy."

You have provided no legal theory, nor any evidence, that your conspiracy theory is in any way anything other than nonsense. Other than saying, "because no one will humor these "sovereigns" it must be because their position must be true!"

Is you who are being intellectually dishonest here. Good day to you.

I have no obligation to provide legal theory since I haven't made any claims in that regard. I was just stating my observations as a neutral bystander, and based on that, you jumped to conclusions and mendaciously misstated my position.

I'm honestly a bit mystified by the intensity of emotion against "sovereign citizens." My overall position is that "sovereign citizens" do not bother me in the slightest. They don't interfere or impede me in my life, and I don't bother them either. It's only cops, judges, and others of that ilk who seem incredibly bothered and upset by them, and that's what I find interesting.

And my point stands. It's hardly an imposition to change from one flag to the other, yet you're the one making a big deal about it.

 

[Nous]

I must have spent about 2 hours last night watching numerous "sovereign citizen" videos and specifically how they interacted with police during ordinary traffic stops. It was mesmerizing because the unfortunates involved had caused themselves a huge amount of duress due to an extremely superficial understanding of law and the power of authorized police officers.

Video after video, person after person, sounded like they were quoting from the same book. They all used the same weird terms (instead of "driving", they were "traveling"). Inevitably these went into similar cases before judges where the special snowflakes tried this song and dance on a judge. Let's say that, though extremely polite, strangely so, in fact, the judges were not swayed by their excuse for critical legal thought. And yes, all the folks I saw chose to represent themselves. Like, what could possibly go wrong in a court of law representing yourself?

I have selected 2 videos. The 1st is an extreme little female who is downright perky, at first... till she gets herself arrested. Her raving gives the word delusional new emphasis and meaning. The 2nd video is of some guy called Mike the Cop and he gives his 2 cents on the "sovereign citizen" phenomena.

Just when you thought you had seen and heard everything too.

WARNING!!! During her meltdown she begins swearing loudly, hysterically and repeatedly. In contrast, the police officer is so calm, cool and collected that it is amazing.

Me? I would be pistol whipping these folks much sooner, LOL. (No, you probably don't want me as a cop.)

The amusing and informative Mike the Cop explanation

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

And here I though my first thread of the New Year was going to be on Intersectionality. Jeeez. The plans of mice and er, um, mice.

I only watched about a minute of the first video. I just want to say upfront how pleased I am that you think of me when you see a video of a lunatic babbling in a Mickey Mouse voice during a confrontation with a police officer! I think I have accomplished my mission here!

No, it definitely isn't a good idea to try to irritate a police officer who is just doing his job. Catch some officers on a bad day, and this idiot woman would find her face imprinting the hood of her car. From what I saw, I can only praise this officer for his patience and politeness.

The woman is babbling something about the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps she doesn't understand that on September 13, 1788, Congress resolved to begin proceedings under the newly ratified Constitution:
https://cdn.loc.gov/service/rbc/bdsdcc/2410h/2410h.pdf

As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't even come close to addressing anything that I said, other than what you assumed about my position. As I said, I'm a neutral bystander in this argument, merely pointing out some observations. If you don't like that, I'm sorry, but if you're unable to address the issue in earnest without all this invective, that's on you, not me.

If you did not understand the proper action would have been to ask questions. Others could see that I did what I claimed to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I only watched about a minute of the first video. I just want to say upfront how pleased I am that you think of me when you see a video of a lunatic babbling in a Mickey Mouse voice during a confrontation with a police officer! I think I have accomplished my mission here!

No, it definitely isn't a good idea to try to irritate a police officer who is just doing his job. Catch some officers on a bad day, and this idiot woman would find her face imprinting the hood of her car. From what I saw, I can only praise this officer for his patience and politeness.

The woman is babbling something about the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps she doesn't understand that on September 13, 1788, Congress resolved to begin proceedings under the newly ratified Constitution:
https://cdn.loc.gov/service/rbc/bdsdcc/2410h/2410h.pdf

As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

By the sound of that video, that is where the hood of the car is where the young lady ended up. Not that the officer involved did not give her chance after chance not to end up there.

 

[Stevicus]

If you did not understand the proper action would have been to ask questions.

I did ask questions, which you failed to provide adequate answers.

I asked why a judge would refuse to change a flag under the circumstances in question, and all you could come up with was a very weak response that it would "delay the proceedings." That's hardly true, since it wouldn't take that much time. You also stated a fallacious slippery slope argument that it would lead to more "demands" from the defendant. Oh, and you also peppered it with opinionated, overemotional arguments that it's "idiotic" and "ridiculous." I'm sorry, this just doesn't impress me or convince me at all.

What's the real answer to the question? If you don't know, then just say so.

Also, you asked if I understood what "burden of proof" is. I answered this in post #76, and I then asked you: "Do you know what's being asked to be proven here?" You didn't even bother to address that question at all.

You see, this is one of those rare opportunities when it is actually possible to disprove a so-called "conspiracy theory," and it can be done quite easily by a simple action of changing a flag. It's not that much time and bother to do so.

Others could see that I did what I claimed to do.

Hooray for you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why not? It's no skin off me. It may be ego-deflating for a judge, but who cares about judges?

Who's going to pay for such changes? You?

 

[Stevicus]

Who's going to pay for such changes? You?

Pay for what? A flag? Flags aren't that expensive, especially since many of them are made in China these days.

 

[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.

What this guy said is gibberish. A writ is an enforceable order that is issued by a body that has legal authority, generally a court. Individuals without such authority do not “file” writs, and do not issue writs. Individuals can petition courts to issue writs, such as the well known writ of habeas corpus. A court will determine whether it is appropriate to grant or deny the writ. Another writ is the writ of certiorari, which is an order from a higher court to a lower court to send the record for a case to the higher court for review. There are about a dozen commonplace writs with Latin names issued in the US.

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.

Utter nonsense.

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.

All of this is just too much lunacy to even know where to begin. Police are empowered to perform their duties, including "seizing" or detaining people, on the basis of statutes and case law. Police officers the world over have such powers. To claim that police officers' powers to investigate and temporarily detain people means that the US (alone) is "under martial law" is just mind-boggling.

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.

See my underlining:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Persons who are natural born citizens or naturalized in the US are citizens of both the United States and the state wherein they reside.

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."

There is no "validity" to this or the other things you have said someone told you.

The issue of the common law in the federal courts is slightly complicated. Federal common law exists only to the extent that Congress has not invalidated it by statute. In one of the most important decisions of the 20th century, Erie RR v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court reversed a large body of case law (probably the most case law that has ever been reversed by a single decision) in holding that there is "no federal general common law" in diversity jurisdiction. This was done because to put an end to the rampant of system of forum shopping and because the case law was getting confusing. But common law still operates, is still created, for certain subject matters in federal courts (e.g., civil rights) and where Congress has not legislated something to the contrary. It's all very interesting. If you want to know what's what about common law in the federal courts, there is no better place to turn than to read and understand what the Supreme Court has said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did ask questions, which you failed to provide adequate answers.

I asked why a judge would refuse to change a flag under the circumstances in question, and all you could come up with was a very weak response that it would "delay the proceedings." That's hardly true, since it wouldn't take that much time. You also stated a fallacious slippery slope argument that it would lead to more "demands" from the defendant. Oh, and you also peppered it with opinionated, overemotional arguments that it's "idiotic" and "ridiculous." I'm sorry, this just doesn't impress me or convince me at all.

What's the real answer to the question? If you don't know, then just say so.

Also, you asked if I understood what "burden of proof" is. I answered this in post #76, and I then asked you: "Do you know what's being asked to be proven here?" You didn't even bother to address that question at all.

You see, this is one of those rare opportunities when it is actually possible to disprove a so-called "conspiracy theory," and it can be done quite easily by a simple action of changing a flag. It's not that much time and bother to do so.



Hooray for you.

And your questions were answered for you. My response was not weak. At best you did not understand it. And those were accurate assessments, you should not make false claims about others.

One more time, if you did not understand a post the proper action to take is to ask questions politely and properly. Try again.

 

[Nous]

By the sound of that video, that is where the hood of the car is where the young lady ended up. Not that the officer involved did not give her chance after chance not to end up there.

I didn't watch it to see where anyone ended up in the video. Just on the basis of the woman's voice alone, I would have had to restrain myself from strangling her.

 

[Stevicus]

And your questions were answered for you. My response was not weak. At best you did not understand it. And those were accurate assessments, you should not make false claims about others.

One more time, if you did not understand a post the proper action to take is to ask questions politely and properly. Try again.

You're not really making an honest effort here. All I can say is that I tried to get to the truth of the matter by asking sincere questions, and I've been mostly polite throughout this entire discussion. My conscience is clear.

The bottom line is, "sovereign citizens" harm no one. They're just ordinary people trying to live their lives in what they honestly believed to be a "free society." Their only real fault was in believing the propaganda about America being a "free country," but I can't see why anyone would fault them for that. Yet their existence is somehow offensive to you, for reasons you are unable or unwilling elucidate.