'Sovereign citizen' claim fails in court?

by ~ The Rebel ~ Posted 2012/07/13 15:42:53

Related Topics: Law Enforcement, Social Security, FBI, Charlotte, Enforcement, Florida, Court, Investigator, This Week, Thousands

Read More

Read all 42 opinions

No license, no registration... No Social Security Number?

A woman convicted of traffic violations this week in Charlotte County has none of the above; she's what law enforcement considers a Sovereign Citizen.

The NBC2 Investigators found out law enforcement is watching the Sovereign Movement closely.

Louise is not considered a violent threat, but the court found she still broke the law, whether she believes in the law or not.

The FBI says there are thousands of Sovereign Citizens in the state of Florida.

Louise has 30 days to pay a fine for her charges or appeal.

Lee 2012/08/19 20:09:47 (edited)

Just another pack of Right Wing Nut Job murdering trash.

It may be time to take up arms against Right Wing Nut Job terrorists like Sovereign Citizens, don't you think?

http://www.examiner.com/artic...
Sovereign Citizens are essentially the military arm of the Tea Party.

They spout the very same rhetoric.

. . . And they're all nasty, murderous Right Wing Nut Job thugs at heart.

reply
TyrannyNews 2012/07/14 01:42:59

+2
The language used in this article is very automated, as if the FBI spokesperson isn't familiar with the illegitimacy of government. For instance, "driving vs. traveling argument...isn't valid." Maybe by his standard, based on assuming that she is subject to government.

Or, "whatever it is they think they don't have to do, they don't do." What does she "have" to do? Assuming she rejected the courts authority and stated her wish to maintain her rights, common law trumps local statutes.

Then, the author ties her "type" to 2 murderers and Tim McVeigh. How kind. I suspect this woman just wanted to travel from point A to B, but was ensnared by a criminal gang to extort money from her.

And the icing on the cake..."Louise has 30 days to pay a fine for her charges or appeal." What if she simply ignored these criminal demands? What if she had simply continued driving on safely in the first place? That would have been Louise's last day alive.

They will kill you people. And if you just ignore their unjust commands, you'll at least be labeled as a "violent tax dodger" and be caged like an animal.

Couldn't she have just said, "I do not accept your offer" and avoided her kidnapping and the added threats of violence for non-cooperation?

reply
I. Car Rus 2012/07/13 18:34:32

kooks

reply
Philo-Publius 2012/07/13 16:48:43

Listen very carefully –

This website: http://constitutionalsheriffs... mentions that when she was pulled over, her car had a USDOT number prominently displayed on her car. This is where she invoked jurisdiction (I'm taking these third party reports at face value here because the writers are clearly intimately familiar with the details of the case, and are making their arguments based on these facts, which they'd have no reason to otherwise admit):

She had a tag (sign) which said DOT exempt and displayed the numbers on the "sign." They asked her why she had no license plate, she said she has a sign with the exempt number on it. They asked her for her drivers license, she said she was not driving, she was actually "traveling..."

Now, I don't know what the precise rules are with respect to DOT exemptions, as far as additional local licensing or registration requirements (perhaps another user could enlighten us), but I presume the very act of applying to the government for an exemption rather than simply standing on your constitutional rights, creates a presumption of jurisdiction which would be very hard to rebut. If Ms. Louise did not apply to the government for the paperwork, she would have been in the right. The very act of requesting and displaying your exemption, howeve...

Listen very carefully –

This website: http://constitutionalsheriffs... mentions that when she was pulled over, her car had a USDOT number prominently displayed on her car. This is where she invoked jurisdiction (I'm taking these third party reports at face value here because the writers are clearly intimately familiar with the details of the case, and are making their arguments based on these facts, which they'd have no reason to otherwise admit):

She had a tag (sign) which said DOT exempt and displayed the numbers on the "sign." They asked her why she had no license plate, she said she has a sign with the exempt number on it. They asked her for her drivers license, she said she was not driving, she was actually "traveling..."

Now, I don't know what the precise rules are with respect to DOT exemptions, as far as additional local licensing or registration requirements (perhaps another user could enlighten us), but I presume the very act of applying to the government for an exemption rather than simply standing on your constitutional rights, creates a presumption of jurisdiction which would be very hard to rebut. If Ms. Louise did not apply to the government for the paperwork, she would have been in the right. The very act of requesting and displaying your exemption, however, is going to (rightly) be considered prima facie evidence that they have jurisdiction over you in other traffic-related matters.
(more)

reply
ProudProgressive 2012/07/13 16:00:58

+1
"Sovereign citizens" generally tend to be tax evaders and debtors who don't want to pay their bills, so they try to claim that the United States of America and whatever state they live in have no jurisdiction over them. It has no basis in law and always fails in court.

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/07/31 17:20:42

+2
When you look at the world through rose-colored glasses, everything appears pink. So if you are a US citizen (a slave), you assume that "sovereign citizens" are tax evaders; but the truth is they are not evading anything. It is the government that is "forcing" a free human being to pay something they did not consent to. If they did, it would be very easy to prove in court - just show the contract.

reply
Tyranny... to Mark O 2012/09/09 23:43:10

+1
Beautifully stated. I agree and would add that there's additional irony in that she almost certainly did pay her taxes relative to the roadway system. That is funded entirely by an enormous gas tax.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/13 05:03:07

A United States citizen is not a slave. If you don't like the laws of this country, you are free to leave. By staying here, you are agreeing to abide by the laws of the United States and whichever state or locality you choose to live in. And if you want to see the contract, here it is:

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 16:36:53

+1
The Constitution is not a contract. Also, citizens are not bound by the Constitution anyway, it is a restriction on the powers of Government, not on the citizenry. The constitution simply reaffirms the rights that the people already had from God. The United States is a corporation, so if you want to leave the corporation, just stop being an employee.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/18 17:12:09

The United States is not a corporation, and God never granted anyone the right to own an AK-47.

reply
~ The R... to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 17:24:15

Might I suggest you do some research on that?

Search results for 'the united states is a corporation'
http://search.yahoo.com/searc...

reply
ProudPr... to ~ The R... 2012/09/18 17:31:14

LOL I've seen abot fifty different versions of this nonsense over the years, and it has never been taken seriously by anyone. The theory goes that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to set the laws for the District of Columbia (this in spite of the clear language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution) and that by doing so they created a corporate entity. (It also contains the usual idiocy claiming that "The United States of America" and "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" are two different things.

It's bullsh*t. Always has been. Always will be.

And if you can point out the passage in the bible that discusses AK-47s, I'd love to read it.

reply
Tyranny... to ProudPr... 2012/09/09 23:40:10

" It has no basis in law and always fails in court."

Not to be overly critical of your language, but I would personally rephrase this to read...

"It doesn't conform to legal statutes, and the corporate state's legal representatives always assert to win their case against the individual party."

reply
ProudPr... to Tyranny... 2012/09/13 04:58:50

What's the difference between "it has no basis in law" and "it doesn't conform to legal statutes"?

reply
Dan 2012/07/13 15:49:45

+1
This "sovereign citizen" movement sounds like an attempt to circumvent the law. The next time I get pulled over for a traffic violation I'll just say I'm a "sovereign mororist".

reply
Mark O to Dan 2012/07/31 17:24:31

+2
Sovereigns do not attempt to circumvent the law, they live within the law. That's the whole point of being a sovereign, to be a follower of the law. Americans have been brainwashed to believe that statutes and codes are law, but they are not. Saying you are a "sovereign motorist" does not make any sense, because the term "motorist" does not apply to a sovereign. It's like saying you are eating an apple banana.

reply
Dan to Mark O 2012/08/01 02:06:25

The whole concept sounds like a contradiction to me.

reply
Mark O to Dan 2012/08/08 02:05:45

+1
It is not a contradiction if you understand the common law which the Constitution is based on. Study the basics of common law. It's very simple, there are only three basic rules to follow under common law: you don't harm another human, don't damage property that does not belong to you and if you choose to enter into contracts, you don't commit any fraud. The government is presuming that you are in a contract with them and you gave up your rights by applying for benefits such as a drivers license, social security benefits, welfare payments, subsidies, etc. The only problem is that these are not valid contracts to begin with because there was no full disclosure, but if you don't rebut the presumption, you are guilty under the governments statutes. It all comes back to the old saying "if you don't know what your rights are, you don't have any".

reply
Dan to Mark O 2012/08/08 02:24:06

+1
Let me see if I understand the example. The woman claimed even though she had no documents required by law, she is exempt from the law because she would have to give up rights to receive these documents. Am I close?

reply
Mark O to Dan 2012/08/14 15:34:49

+1
Yup, you are getting closer, except she is not required by law to have any of those documents, and the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. And if they say that she is required to have some documents, it is their responsibility to prove this. But under the common law, you are not required to have any of those documents. And if she committed a crime, documents are irrelevant anyways - because people commit crimes, not documents. Does this make sense?

reply
Dan to Mark O 2012/08/17 02:06:59

Doesn't the law require a drivers license to drive on public roads?

reply
Mark O to Dan 2012/08/21 15:06:16

+1
The statutory law requires a license to drive, but the definition of driving is to operate a motor vehicle for commerce. However, under common law, no license is required for traveling. And the higher courts have already decided this over and over, that people have a right to travel. Look up all the court decisions that make this crystal clear. So to summarize, you need a license to "drive", but you don't need a license to travel upon the public roads.

reply
Dan to Mark O 2012/08/22 00:31:10 (edited)

Were those federal higher courts or state higher courts?

reply
Mark O to Dan 2012/08/28 14:14:13

+1
Both state and federal. Here is more info:
http://www.barefootsworld.net...

reply
Dan to Mark O 2012/08/28 18:19:11

+1
It seems to me that the same argument could be used for laws restricting second ammendment rights as well.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/13 05:13:08

The definition of driving is to operate a motor vehicle on public roads for ANY purpose. You are free to walk, but if you want to drive you need a license. Period.

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 16:37:54

+1
I agree, in order to "drive" you need a license; but, you do not need a license to travel.

reply
Tyranny... to Mark O 2012/09/09 23:53:11

+1
I think the courts actually only act based on the individual's recognition of the court's jurisdiction. So, if this woman teleported in from another planet she would only have to stand when the bailiff asks "all rise" to enter the contract and be considered compliant. That or any number of other tricks Judges learn during weekend conferences paid for by uninformed Americans.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/13 05:10:57

The Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it supersede the "common law".

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 16:39:01

+1
The Constitution does not supersede the "common law" it reaffirms the common law and limits the powers of the government so that it does not take away the rights of the people.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/18 17:14:22

Where there is any conflict between the Constitution and the common law, the Constitution prevails. Under the common law, women generally could not vote. Under the Constitution they can.

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 19:46:05

+1
Of course they can vote under the Constitution!!! Voting is a privilege, not a right!!

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/18 20:10:17

They can vote now because of the 19th Amendment. Before it was passed any state could deny women their right to vote. (In fact, while Minor v. Happersett did not define a "natural born citizen", as the birthers have tried to claim, the case DID establish that state laws banning women from voting were constitutional. Had the 19th Amendment not been pased that would still be valid law in this country.)

And yes it is a right, not a privilege. That's why the 19th Amendment says: "The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/18 21:23:23

+1
Voting is not a "natural" right. It is only a right given to you by the government, meaning you are a citizen and are given a privilege of voting. For example, you don't have a right to go over to Obama's house and tell him what's for dinner, unless Obama personally invites you and grants you the "privilege" of a dinner preference. I hope this makes sense to you now.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/18 21:36:47

A right is a right, whether it is a "natural" right or something a society makes up out of thin air and agrees on. If you are born here, or if you go through the proper naturalization procedures, then you are a United States citizen, and being a citizen conveys with it certain rights, such as the right to vote.

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/19 15:33:50

+1
Let me make it a little more clear. All rights are granted to human beings. Natural rights are given to you by God. All other rights are given to you by man - these are also known as "man-made" laws.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/19 21:29:47

So what's your point?

reply
Mark O to ProudPr... 2012/09/20 15:12:43

+1
My point is that there is a difference between "natural" rights and "man-made" rights. Voting is not a natural right, but a right given to citizens by the government. So under common law, voting for president is a privilege for citizens.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/20 15:25:34

And again, we are not living under the common law; we are living under a Constitution, and that Constitution recognizes (or if you wish, creates) a right of citizens to vote.

reply
ProudPr... to Mark O 2012/09/13 05:08:52 (edited)

It is the audacity and absurdity of declaring oneself a"sovereign" itself that constitutes the attempt to circumvent the law. If you are a citizen of the United States then you are SUBJECT to its laws. If you don' want to be a citizen, that's fine, but in that case get the hell out of this country, since a noncitizen has no right to be here without this country's permission, and that permission will not be granted unless you agree to abide by the laws of this country.

reply