"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[YmirGF]

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!

Oh, good grief @Nous I mentioned you simply because it was a convoluted quasi-legal argument.

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.

Thank you. I know that and I'm not even an American. Again, I saw video after video, with person after person, blathering all in the same way, as if they were following a script. I'm more curious about where on Earth these wingnuts are getting this exceedingly bad advice from. In no way was this meant as an affront to your character. To be honest. I thought, "Got legal question. Ask Nous!" (Feel better?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It had a highly satisfactory ending. The short version is that she could have walked away. The officer gave her many chances. Her continual obstruction ended up in her being detained and her bag searched. By her reaction she had some illegal substances in that bag. When one is breaking the law one should avoid giving the police a reason to search oneself.

 

[Nous]

Oh, good grief @Nous I mentioned you simply because it was a convoluted quasi-legal argument.

I know. I was just joshing with you. I do appreciate you thinking of me and calling my attention to this topic--which I really know nothing about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry you didn't. And you refused to be reasonable. It is rather hypocritical to complain when you are the cause of the problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, good grief @Nous I mentioned you simply because it was a convoluted quasi-legal argument.

Thank you. I know that and I'm not even an American. Again, I saw video after video, with person after person, blathering all in the same way, as if they were following a script. I'm more curious about where on Earth these wingnuts are getting this exceedingly bad advice from. In no way was this meant as an affront to your character. To be honest. I thought, "Got legal question. Ask Nous!" (Feel better?)

Now that is an interesting question. I might have to look into that.

 

[Nous]

It had a highly satisfactory ending. The short version is that she could have walked away. The officer gave her many chances. Her continual obstruction ended up in her being detained and her bag searched. By her reaction she had some illegal substances in that bag. When one is breaking the law one should avoid giving the police a reason to search oneself.

Thank you. That is rather satisfying to think that she at least got humiliated, hopefully arrested for something.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Sure, it's true that police have the guns and the force to back up their power, but that's the only thing. As the saying goes, "might makes right," but that doesn't make it moral or just. That's what cuts to the core of the matter. If it's not "martial law," then it's the "law of the jungle." Just so we're clear on that. Anything is just so much legalese and other gobbledygook.

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

True enough. Others have told us (including countless presidents and other politicians) that America is a "free" country, but I suppose there's no validity to that either.

 

[Stevicus]

Sorry you didn't. And you refused to be reasonable. It is rather hypocritical to complain when you are the cause of the problem.

Sigh. You're sounding like a broken record here. I was being quite reasonable, polite, and sincere this entire discussion. I'm not the cause of any problem here. You are, by refusing to be honest and forthright in this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wrong again. Many of them use that nonsense to avoid buying insurance. An uninsured motorist causes damage to others when they get into an accident. And with any population accidents are a given. If your conscience is clear that is an indictment of you.

No society is "free" in the sense that they want. Many of them are tax evaders, which means that they steal from you and me. A person can believe whatever one wants. It is when one acts on those beliefs that they are judged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh. You're sounding like a broken record here. I was being quite reasonable, polite, and sincere this entire discussion. I'm not the cause of any problem here. You are, by refusing to be honest and forthright in this.

Don't blame me for a problem that you caused. And no, you were being extremely unreasonable. You should not make false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, good grief @Nous I mentioned you simply because it was a convoluted quasi-legal argument.

Thank you. I know that and I'm not even an American. Again, I saw video after video, with person after person, blathering all in the same way, as if they were following a script. I'm more curious about where on Earth these wingnuts are getting this exceedingly bad advice from. In no way was this meant as an affront to your character. To be honest. I thought, "Got legal question. Ask Nous!" (Feel better?)

Wikipedia is often a good starting point for many researches. I would not call this rock solid evidence, but it does seem to be well supported. And as usual one can follow the links that are provided:

Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia

It appears that there is a "leader" of a sort to this movement. Here is a link to an article on him. That would go a long way to explain why they all tend to spew the same ignorant nonsense:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Feucht.html

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

But it's not "just" a flag. If you make legally insignificant changes to the courtroom for any time wasting whackaloon who comes in, you have to make such changes for all of them. Like I said earlier, today, it's changing a flag, tomorrow it's some idiot who wants the carpet changed, day after that, some guy wants the judge to wear a Hawaiian shirt, next week, some loon who wants the court reporter to stand on his head for the duration of the trial. Sure, none of them are legally important changes, but courts don't work that way. You didn't answer my question, are you offering to pay for all the relevant changes? Because I sure as spit don't want my tax dollars being wasted on such nonsense.

 

[Stevicus]

Don't blame me for a problem that you caused. And no, you were being extremely unreasonable. You should not make false claims.

Please cite the alleged "false claims" I made. Cite which posts and use exact quotes. My impression here is that you did not read what I said and you're just assuming.

Please indicate exactly where and when I was being "unreasonable."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Wikipedia is often a good starting point for many researches. I would not call this rock solid evidence, but it does seem to be well supported. And as usual one can follow the links that are provided:

Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia

It appears that there is a "leader" of a sort to this movement. Here is a link to an article on him. That would go a long way to explain why they all tend to spew the same ignorant nonsense:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Feucht.html

I'm often amazed how much fringe groups and conspiracy theorist are all able to coordinate their nonsense. I guess most of the people who believe this sort of stuff aren't imaginative enough to deviate from the script, or make up their own loony conspiracy stuff.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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."

Not true.

I'm happy to provide sources, but there's two main points here. 1. they are ridiculously vexatious litigants, and cost private citizens and public legal systems millions dealing with their nonsense, and 2. They are rated as significant terrorist threats, with close ties to various dangerous groups and movements. Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a "sovereign Citizen" in all but name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please cite the alleged "false claims" I made. Cite which posts and use exact quotes. My impression here is that you did not read what I said and you're just assuming.

Please indicate exactly where and when I was being "unreasonable."

Everything in this quote is false:

" I was being quite reasonable, polite, and sincere this entire discussion. I'm not the cause of any problem here. You are, by refusing to be honest and forthright in this."

How you have been unreasonable, no need for scare quotes, has been explained to you by several posters here. I am not the dishonest one here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true.

I'm happy to provide sources, but there's two main points here. 1. they are ridiculously vexatious litigants, and cost private citizens and public legal systems millions dealing with their nonsense, and 2. They are rated as significant terrorist threats, with close ties to various dangerous groups and movements. Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a "sovereign Citizen" in all but name.

Yep, as I pointed out and as my first source pointed out too, many of them are tax protesters. That makes them thieves. They also avoid insurance yet demand that they can drive on roads. With any population accidents are predictable. They end up harming people when they get into accidents. The "I never get into accidents line" does not fly since one cannot predict the future.on an individual basis. On the basis of a group one can.

 

[Stevicus]

Wrong again. Many of them use that nonsense to avoid buying insurance. An uninsured motorist causes damage to others when they get into an accident. And with any population accidents are a given. If your conscience is clear that is an indictment of you.

Why? If someone causes damage, then they're required to pay for it either way. If they don't cause damage, then they can have a clear conscience. You're just assuming that accidents are a given, but not everyone causes accidents.

Besides, insurance doesn't usually cover everything. It's the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry and pay for whatever damage occurs.

No society is "free" in the sense that they want. Many of them are tax evaders, which means that they steal from you and me. A person can believe whatever one wants. It is when one acts on those beliefs that they are judged.

Taxes are collected in the form of sales taxes from transactions, as well as from payroll deductions. Under a proper system, no one can evade taxes. But then again, I don't believe in any illusions about America being a "free" society, and I don't propagate such illusions. Others do that. My view is that everyone should work for a living and help to produce what is necessary for society to sustain itself, while in return, they get consideration by being provided with enough food, shelter, healthcare, and other necessities of life. You think that's "unreasonable"?

To me, what is unreasonable here is by getting people to believe that we are more "free" in America just because we have lawyers to spout off legalese and other double-talk to merely propagate illusions. "Sovereign citizens" are merely countering that with more legalese and double-talk, while causing many people to pop a cork and get enormously emotional and upset about it (like you).

You're just upset because some people don't believe in the same illusions as you do, and you consider that unreasonable. This is what religionists do. And yet, you identify as "atheist"? Hmmm...

 

[Stevicus]

Everything in this quote is false:

" I was being quite reasonable, polite, and sincere this entire discussion. I'm not the cause of any problem here. You are, by refusing to be honest and forthright in this."

You're just stating an opinion. Opinions are not facts.

How you have been unreasonable, no need for scare quotes, has been explained to you by several posters here. I am not the dishonest one here.

"Scare quotes," huh? Other posters are merely parroting each other. Doesn't prove a thing. All that it means is that others are part of your same religion, a religion I do not share.

 

[Stevicus]

But it's not "just" a flag. If you make legally insignificant changes to the courtroom for any time wasting whackaloon who comes in, you have to make such changes for all of them. Like I said earlier, today, it's changing a flag, tomorrow it's some idiot who wants the carpet changed, day after that, some guy wants the judge to wear a Hawaiian shirt, next week, some loon who wants the court reporter to stand on his head for the duration of the trial.

Now you're drifting into hyperbole. Another slippery slope that I've already addressed. It's not a logical argument. Please try again.

Sure, none of them are legally important changes, but courts don't work that way. You didn't answer my question, are you offering to pay for all the relevant changes? Because I sure as spit don't want my tax dollars being wasted on such nonsense.

There are plenty of things that we pay for which many don't agree with. I don't like having my tax dollars being wasted on military or a police state, yet that's what it goes for. And it's not for the protection of the public or any abstract notions of "freedom." It's all about protecting the wealthy and other elements of the corporate mafia. That's what we have right now, and you're defending that?