Can someone explain to me the “sovereign citizen” concept and all the trials/“laws” supporting it?
By - WormXr
Just do some googling.
A lot of the sovereign citizen sites will have downloadable lists depending on where you’re at with case law/common law/old and outdated statues that support their craziness.
Some will even have step by step instructions on how to get arrested every single time you interact with law enforcement.
They are people with the IQ of 10 that have been sold magic beans by other idiots with the IQ of 15.
It has no basis in reality or in the legal system.
But they do fill the jails up really fast
Stop hindering my right to travel on reddit, I am not a citizen so therefor your rules and regulations mean nothing to me as they can not be pushed on me. HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
Some of them talk about God given right to travel etc etc. The book of Romans talks about obeying the authorities as those who enforce the laws are good if you act right 😃. Jesus says give to Caesar what is ceaser’s. From a christian if you use scripture on the religious nuts they kind of fall flat.
They basically use quasi legal terms to try not obey any laws of the country while simultaneously benefiting from all the good things.
A lot of the arguments are based off a constitutional right to travel which in their tiny minds supersedes any and all road traffic laws (car stops seem to be the majority of sovereign citizen footage) they the argue that the car stops/searches have to be based off two party consent which they don't consent to etc etc
This then extends to when they appear in court attempting to frustrate by saying they don't recognise their oath of office and don't agree to the laws.
I believe a lot of it is worked off some misunderstanding of old maritime laws mixed with absolute bullshit.
To my knowledge, and it's not extensive, no court has ever sided with them anywhere in the world (I'm fairly sure I've read that, but can't remember where 🤣)
IS THAT A GOLD FRINGE ON YOUR FLAG?
The articles of confederation, a thrown out legal document that was a mess: things like what they cite is exactly why it’s not a law.
>no court has ever sided with them anywhere in the world
Wait wait wait. I know that there is one time that a court sided with the sovcit. The judge basically ignored all of the arguments that the sovcit made, and pointed out that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that a crime had occurred in the first place. I distinctly remember this. I want to find it really badly right now. I am thinking that this took case in Canada, but I'm not sure.
Edit: FOUND IT! [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html)
>Near the beginning of his comments to me at the outset of this trial, Mr. Duncan proclaimed that he had no obligation to produce identification to the police officers. In that moment, before he continued down the Alice in Wonderland garden path of trusts and jurisdiction and dollar amounts and contracts and natural persons and administrators, Mr. Duncan momentarily hit upon the concept that would ultimately lead to his acquittal, albeit not by the rather circuitous and, with all due respect, silly path he wanted to go down. Applying the rather more prosaic concepts of the elements of the offence and an analysis of “who did what to whom why”, the only conclusion reasonably open to me on the evidence at this trial was that the police and Crown failed entirely to articulate a lawful foundation for the attempt to arrest Mr. Duncan. The evidence before me failed to demonstrate that the purported arrest of Mr. Duncan was lawful. A citizen is entitled to resist an arrest that is unlawful. Thus, even assuming that I were to accept the police evidence of Mr. Duncan’s actions as making out the assault beyond a reasonable doubt, an issue that is not entirely free of controversy, a nonsuit and thus an acquittal is the only outcome that is lawfully open to me on the evidence before me.
There are multiple versions of sovereign citizens. You have Moors, the people who think we're under admirality law, the people who think that after the US Civil War we stopped being a country and became a corporation, the new world order lunatics, and the 1A auditors probably qualify as well. And that's just in the US - sovcits exist in the UK, Canada, Australia, and probably other countries as well.
Each has their own unique view on what the laws actually mean. Its worth searching it on your own or at least reading the Wikipedia entry on them. Van Balion and Schroedinger's Cat are two good Youtube channels for videos of them.
ETA: One belief that is common across them in the US is their belief in the "right to travel." They'll say that traffic laws do not apply to them because they only apply to people driving for commerce. They'll usually reference Black's Law Dictionary from the 1800's for definitions of terms like "driving" even though cars didn't exist then, the word driving means something totally different, law dictionaries have no legal weight, and most traffic laws don't use the term driving anyhow.
I wonder how many “sovereign citizens” get busted for possession because they couldn’t keep their mouths shut.
In a basic sense they feel the law in and of itself shouldn't exist sense laws were voted on and placed without there vote in the past(ironically they refer to old US documents that say nothing about being exempt from the laws). They usually hate cops and are mostly just people who got nothing to lose because they value nothing but their personnel pursuits and act like animals accordingly...
There was a video I watched where the sovereign citizen thought the articles of confederation was above the constitution
Has anyone here experienced a sovereign citizen on the job? I find them to be so frustrating and get anxious watching them on YouTube lol.
I did as a teenager working at a movie theater. Guy refused to show ID for a ticket to a movie rated R. Straight up said, "I'm a sovereign citizen, I don't show my ID to government agents." "...sir, I'm not a government agent, I work for [shitty theater company], I can't sell you that ticket without checking your ID." He showed me his ID, he was of age, he got his ticket.
We had a lady a few weeks ago refuse to show ID when checking into the hotel. Kept repeating "show me the law", when we said it's company policy. Eventually we refused service. Then she got even angrier. Like, YOU started this lady, not us. I won't go and say she was full on sovereign though.
Lol that is funny that he thought you were in government.
When he got the ID he should have held his left wrist infront of his face and said "Abracadabra, Abracadabra we got him"
I'm honestly shocked at how many people try this game lol.
They adhere to the articles of confederation, this document was the first attempt at a constitution in the USA . It had a strong emphasis on states rights. It is not something that is being used and is misquoted by sovereigns often.
They are basically criminals who twist old documents to say that they don’t need to follow laws.
I do not agree to engage in joinder.