• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sovereign Citizens Hijinks

Bob001 said:
What's the basis for the initial letter? "You owe me 10 million dollars because...."? Could the clerks shut the whole thing down by responding "Dear Sir, We don't owe you any money," or similarly?
Click to expand...
I think a simple and polite: "My dear sir, it turns out that we actually do not owe you any money. However you are free to come in and give our staff free BJs! Sincerely, Robert Friendly, Clerk of County Court" should suffice!:thumbsup::D
 
BStrong said:
Correct.

In the example I cite, this guy could have done done what he did legally but deliberately chose not to.

My pov is (having listened to his line of ****) that he simply believed he was entitled to do as he wished, federal and state law be damned.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi You seem a bit surprised by the notion people deliberately disobey the law. There's millions of prisoners living in thousands of prisons around the world because they had that exact same deliberate defiance of the law attitude. I guess I'm missing the novelty in this particular asshat building silencers unlawfully. I mean, bank robbers could also choose to go legit from the beginning and not have to rob banks if instead they actually worked for the money - for some of them that's a truly "novel" idea - but they just don't want to do it that way. Ergo we have to build all those prisons. Is it because he's a Sovereign Citizen who pretends he's entitled to do it? He's really and truly just a common criminal.
 
HarryHenderson said:
:eye-poppi You seem a bit surprised by the notion people deliberately disobey the law.There's millions of prisoners living in thousands of prisons around the world because they had that exact same deliberate defiance of the law attitude. I guess I'm missing the novelty in this particular asshat building silencers unlawfully. I mean, bank robbers could also choose to go legit from the beginning and not have to rob banks if instead they actually worked for the money - for some of them that's a truly "novel" idea - but they just don't want to do it that way. Ergo we have to build all those prisons. Is it because he's a Sovereign Citizen who pretends he's entitled to do it? He's really and truly just a common criminal.
Click to expand...

I'm only noting that someone who could have engaged in their activities fully lawfully chose not to - considering that the potential federal felony charges carry a ten-year $250,000.00 fine per count, doing what the guy did is idiocy in motion.

I'm well aware of how many people are in custody. I put some of them there.
 
HarryHenderson said:
:eye-poppi You seem a bit surprised by the notion people deliberately disobey the law. There's millions of prisoners living in thousands of prisons around the world because they had that exact same deliberate defiance of the law attitude. I guess I'm missing the novelty in this particular asshat building silencers unlawfully. I mean, bank robbers could also choose to go legit from the beginning and not have to rob banks if instead they actually worked for the money - for some of them that's a truly "novel" idea - but they just don't want to do it that way. Ergo we have to build all those prisons. Is it because he's a Sovereign Citizen who pretends he's entitled to do it? He's really and truly just a common criminal.
Click to expand...



Yes, that's largely the key. Regular criminals generally acknowledge that what they're doing is illegal, and aren't surprised when they end up in court/jail. For this reason, they exert significant effort in trying to avoid the attentions of the police. But these SovCit guys are, quite often, deliberately "in your face" about their disregard for the law. You don't see Mafia goons riding around in cars with their own home-made license plates, drawing attention to themselves. And when confronted by the cops, the regular criminals will just deny that they were doing anything of the sort, rather than admit their actions, and then try to argue the cops don't have jurisdiction over them.
 
Civet said:
Looks like even the mafia may have been infected with SovCit memes:

http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/mobster-so-focused-on-flirting-with-clerk-he-couldnt-be-arraigned/
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...k-mobster-accused-extortion-article-1.3195738

Kind of hope it becomes more popular. Might really weaken these organizations.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the guy might be working a version of the old Vincent Gigante "Odd Father" defense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gigante

"For the better part of 30 years, Gigante feigned insanity in an effort to throw law enforcement off his trail. Dubbed "The Oddfather" and "The Enigma in the Bathrobe" by the press, Gigante often wandered the streets of Greenwich Village in his bathrobe and slippers, mumbling incoherently to himself, in what Gigante later admitted was an elaborate act to avoid prosecution. He was indicted on federal racketeering charges in 1990, but was determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial.

In 1997 he was tried and convicted of racketeering and was given a 12-year sentence. Facing new charges in 2003, he pleaded guilty and admitted that his supposed insanity was an elaborate effort to avoid prosecution.[2] He died while in prison custody in 2005 at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners."

I'd think Mafiosi would be less susceptible than average joes when it comes to SC nonsense. They know the score going in.
 
William Parcher said:
I thought that the cops already know the Mafia goons and their cars.
Click to expand...



Yeah, but there's a qualitative difference between the cops knowing you're in the Mafia because they've spent years investigating you and all your known associates, and the cops knowing you're in the Mafia because you're driving around with a license plate that says "CR1M3BO55".
 
BStrong said:
Another poster gave a great answer detailing the common assertions SC/FOTL demand letters earlier in the thread.

I'll address the bolded.

The problem in answering these claims in any official capacity is twofold.

In one sense, answering gives their claims credence. It's hard enough to deal with in an official venue (court, depositions, settlement agreements) where by asserting their claims it essentially stops the proceedings - it's a real issue.

The second problem is that their have been documented cases where written responses denying claims were magically transformed by persons unknown into acknowledgement of a claim or claims.

Like I posted earlier, they're good at turning paper into handcuffs.

To date the best official review of this problem in North America is The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case:

https://ablawg.ca/2012/10/30/the-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-litigant-case/

I highly recommend this as a guide for interested parties.
Click to expand...


Although not directly related to Sovereign Citizens, here is a link to a detailed discussion (and debunking) of almost every tax protester argument.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
 
Horatius said:
But in Canada, a cop drawing his gun is actually a pretty huge thing. In fact, based on what we've seen in the media, a Canadian cop just drawing his gun is likely to be examined more closely than a US cop who actually fires his weapon.

It's a fundamentally different police culture here.
Click to expand...

Anecdata from me but my dad was a small town cop and he said even the act of clearing the holster, never mind use of a weapon, entailed a colossal amount of paperwork.
 
BaaBaa said:
Anecdata from me but my dad was a small town cop and he said even the act of clearing the holster, never mind use of a weapon, entailed a colossal amount of paperwork.
Click to expand...

I am happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that most municipalities in the USA required a written explanation if a police officer unholstered their gun. True or not?
 
Giordano said:
I am happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that most municipalities in the USA required a written explanation if a police officer unholstered their gun. True or not?
Click to expand...
Its the US, probably varies quite a bit, and with out video, did the cop really draw his gun?*

*If its required, then I bet it often goes unreported.
 
Giordano said:
I am happy to be corrected, but I was under the impression that most municipalities in the USA required a written explanation if a police officer unholstered their gun. True or not?
Click to expand...

My bad: I should have mentioned I live in Nova Scotia....
 
More SovCit hijinks from a Florida guy on the hook for murder...

Accused killer seeks to represent himself, but won't let judge swear him in to hear request

Sun Sentinel said:
Dyonte Resiles, the accused killer who escaped from a Broward courtroom two years ago, wants a judge to let him fire his lawyer and represent himself in court. But he refuses to allow the judge to swear him in to hold a hearing on the request.

Resiles, 23, is asserting that he is a “sovereign citizen” who is not subject to the laws of the United States or Florida, and he didn’t appear to accept the authority of Broward Circuit Judge Barbara McCarthy when she tried to have him state his name for the record, on Thursday.

He only spoke up when McCarthy addressed court-appointed defense lawyer H. Dohn Williams as his attorney.

“Nobody cannot represent me,” he said. “I represent myself.”

Unable to swear Resiles in to get him to answer legal questions under oath, McCarthy postponed his hearing for another month.

His continued efforts to act as his own lawyer won’t be able to go forward until he allows himself to be sworn in, Williams said later...
Click to expand...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-sb-resiles-motion-self-represent-20180529-story.html
 
I guess I'm still not sure of the true basis for their claims of "sovereignty". Seems if you take away the double speak they're so famous for it's just a made-up premise that 2 year olds also use. Do they really believe there's no jurisdiction with power over them, or do they (more likely) believe it's a premise worth trying to exploit criminally because as criminals they just don't want to work for anything? A sorta 'what can it hurt' approach?

I mean, these guys aren't out in the streets day in and day out pushing these kinds of politics that say everyone can be free from state control if they would just accept sovereignty as their lord and savior and exercise their rights to it blah blah blah. They're way more convenient (or maybe that's inconvenient) about it, they only seem to claim this particular lunacy when they've been busted for a crime of some sort, quite often for stealing something that wasn't theirs. To them sovereignty = unfettered criminality. It's true stupidity on any level.
 
HarryHenderson said:
I guess I'm still not sure of the true basis for their claims of "sovereignty". Seems if you take away the double speak they're so famous for it's just a made-up premise that 2 year olds also use. Do they really believe there's no jurisdiction with power over them, or do they (more likely) believe it's a premise worth trying to exploit criminally because as criminals they just don't want to work for anything? A sorta 'what can it hurt' approach?

I mean, these guys aren't out in the streets day in and day out pushing these kinds of politics that say everyone can be free from state control if they would just accept sovereignty as their lord and savior and exercise their rights to it blah blah blah. They're way more convenient (or maybe that's inconvenient) about it, they only seem to claim this particular lunacy when they've been busted for a crime of some sort, quite often for stealing something that wasn't theirs. To them sovereignty = unfettered criminality. It's true stupidity on any level.
Click to expand...

Selection bias? You wouldn't hear about sovereign citizens that are also nice to people and don't like to do bad things because they wouldn't make the news.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Selection bias? You wouldn't hear about sovereign citizens that are also nice to people and don't like to do bad things because they wouldn't make the news.
Click to expand...

It's selection bias, but going the other way. People tend to get suckered into the Freeman/Sovereign Citizen woo when they are down on their luck and desperate, which is also when they are inclined to do things like not pay taxes or car insurance. I am sure there are polite, non-troublemaking SCs, hidden around the country like little landmines of stupid that we don't notice until we step on, but I think it is mostly the other way around.
 
Random said:
It's selection bias, but going the other way. People tend to get suckered into the Freeman/Sovereign Citizen woo when they are down on their luck and desperate, which is also when they are inclined to do things like not pay taxes or car insurance. I am sure there are polite, non-troublemaking SCs, hidden around the country like little landmines of stupid that we don't notice until we step on, but I think it is mostly the other way around.
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt that there are nice, decent sovereign citizens not breaking the law. This would entail that they don't feel obligated to pay taxes, but do so out of the kindness in their hearts. Seems implausible to me.
 
phiwum said:
I sincerely doubt that there are nice, decent sovereign citizens not breaking the law. This would entail that they don't feel obligated to pay taxes, but do so out of the kindness in their hearts. Seems implausible to me.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "law-abiding", I said non-troublemaking. People who have bought into the crazy but have not come to the attention of law enforcement, and appear to be good neighbors (do you really know if your neighbors have filed their taxes?).

The man who keeps his car in good repair and drives safely might not come to the attention of the police, who never notice that the nut is printing his own vehicle inspection stickers.

The man who builds a small house, puts up some solar panels, installs his own septic system, and builds a clean, healthy, off-grid farm, might not have any problems in Alaska. The ANWR reserve is pretty big and in general when we see a building in the distance, we tend to assume that whoever built it had permission.

And this might go on for a while, with the Sovereign Citizen breaking the law for years, but not in a way that is immediately noticed. At least until someone sideswipes his car and the police start an accident report, or someone looks at a survey map, or something like that. Then all hell breaks loose.

Landmines of stupid...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom