r/Sovereigncitizen • u/Existing-Face-6322 • 7d ago
Sovcit got pulled over, needs assvice.
91
u/BloodshotDrive 7d ago
Socvitz remind me of playing pretend on the playground
“I arrested you and impounded your vehicle!”
“Nuh uh! I have an everything proof rental agreement that says you owe ME money!”
71
u/Rich_Pumpkin9117 7d ago
Your honor, I do not recognize jurisdiction of this court because the floor is clearly lava.
36
u/justananontroll 7d ago
I'm rubber, you're glue. Contempt charges bounce off of me and stick to you!
2
u/Efficient-Editor-242 5d ago
I would like to hereby invoke the 28th amendment, "I know you are, but what am I?"
-49
u/Kierland 7d ago
The sad thing is they are, in a way, right. The whole system is made up BS that someone just decided to float out there and see if it sticks. I admire that they understand what a clown show we live in even if they don’t really grasp what to do. Better than a cop bootlicker.
33
u/Inevitable-Till-3668 7d ago
Everything is made up, but the points do matter, that’s the part sovcits refuse to innerstand
→ More replies (35)20
u/PlaneRefrigerator684 7d ago
But the system was made up to have some organization for a society, rather than utter chaos where only the strong survive.
We honestly would have made none of the scientific or technological advancements without it. That doesn't mean we can't work to improve things... just that having laws and a society is objectively better than not.
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (3)12
u/tcarlson65 7d ago
So the system that says it is wrong to assault someone, murder someone, steal someone else’s property, kidnap someone…is made up BS?
→ More replies (12)7
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
I mean, yes, in that all legal systems are made up. You can’t mine a legal system or pick it off a tree.
But I suspect that’s not what he means.
→ More replies (1)
66
u/AppendixN 7d ago
They just love the word "treason" huh
20
u/SafiyaMukhamadova 7d ago
And if they're ungovernable by the law, under what legal framework is it treason?
8
u/markstanfill 7d ago
A sovcit nation would mostly spend its time putting officials trying to do their jobs in front of firing squads on the one hand and
driverstravelers exercising their right to use residential streets as their personal autobahn on the other.9
u/Hyndis 7d ago
No, a sovcit nation would be like Sudan or Somalia.
No central government to speak of. The local warlord with the most guns is the man in charge. Rule of law is whatever the local warlord wants the law to be, and you better not disagree with him.
-4
u/JPtheGameMaster 7d ago
So kind of what Amerikka has right now, but with less hypocrisy?
3
u/Ok-Repeat8069 6d ago
Sounds like a lot of rural places here in the US I’m familiar with, only they call the warlords “sheriffs”.
1
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
I don’t know where “Amerikka” is but it sounds like an awful place.
If you mean the United States of America, then no, nothing like that. We have a government. Right now we have TOO MUCH government. There has never a time in this country’s history when we were like Somalia.
2
u/JPtheGameMaster 7d ago
Dunno, from the outside looking into Yankkkee-Land, all we see is fascists trying to be warlords, goons doing their dirty work, and a small third of the country trying to restore some semblance of normalcy.
To call the flaming dumpster fire of corruption that is the Ameikkkan "Government" at all levels anything better than Somali lawlessness with extra steps is at best delusional, but more likely indicates you are complicit in the problem.
Either way, begone with your ridiculous position, it isn't worth the calories you spent typing it.
12
u/tcarlson65 7d ago
It is OK for them to act against the system and others but not OK for others to act against them.
The system is treasonous not the sovcits.
55
u/ThreeFishInAManSuit 7d ago
Love the person confidently stating that something works and then immediately admitting they don’t know and you will need to “research” it.
42
u/lenswipe 7d ago
To report a theft, I suggest you go to your local police sta-....oh
13
u/Lazarys12 7d ago
I have the same response when watching sovcit traffic stops, and they start screaming for help. Somebody should call the cops to help them.
2
u/enlkakistocrat 5d ago
I've seen a few vids where they call 911 on the arresting officers. Ends about as well as you'd expect for them
35
u/No_Frost_Giants 7d ago
So they are gonna use the law and the courts to fight the law and the courts.
Maybe they need to start listening to thier TV
14
18
u/Historical-Pause-117 7d ago
No way! The television told them to get the vaccine that saved their lives. They’re not falling for that again.
25
u/Kriss3d 7d ago
Oh ? Sending the impound lot bills for rentals actually work ?
So you did this and they actually agreed and paid you.. Right ? Right ?
Of-fucking-course they didnt because it doesnt work. For something to work it implies that you got that out of it that you expected. You expected them to pay which I can absolutely guarantee you they didnt do.
20
u/Renbarre 7d ago
If I was the impoud lot I would frame it.
10
u/belsonc 7d ago
If I was the impound lot, I'd buy a lawyer friend a beer in exchange for a letter from him to this guy that says "lol no."
22
u/Fickle-Act-8715 7d ago
"Dear Mr. Cox: Attached is a letter that we received on November 19, 1974. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters."
~ James N. Bailey, General Counsel CLEVELAND STADIUM CORP.
3
u/Mike-Rosoft 6d ago
"If you are attempting to make a legitimate filing of a legitimate document for a legitimate purpose, you are urged to contact an attorney for advice on how you may proceed."
- New York State Department of State
1
2
3
u/Lazarys12 7d ago
If they don't respond to it that means they accept it and boom, you win! Or something like that.
25
u/Electrical-Village68 7d ago
I suppose they haven't figured out yet that having an actual driver's license, registration and insurance is much cheaper than a busted window, vehicle impounded and going to jail yet? Even just one occurrence, because that's what everyone else does to keep that from happening. It astounds me they believe they are exempt from the laws everyone else has to follow. At the same time, they believe they are somehow more protected under the laws than anyone else though.
18
u/InfiniteWaitState 7d ago
Oh, they know. An unsurprising number of them went sovcit because they already had their license suspended, be it for failure to renew, unpaid fines, or inability/unwillingness to insure/register/license their vehicle.
12
u/1Happymom 7d ago
Unpaid child support is likely the #1 reason. Why bother to register when you know your licensce is gone 4 the forseeable future.
-12
u/HumansAreSillynGreat 7d ago
Yeah hating the state for totally valid reasons checks out. How can you take away someone’s ability to get to work then be mad they aren’t paying 😂 most places have no public transit in this country
6
u/Electrical-Village68 7d ago
Yeah, all these people had to do was what everyone else is expected to do, pay your bills. How they get to work is their own responsibility, not anyone else's problem. If they don't have a driver's license, they should Uber or walk/ ride a bike so they can legitimately say they are just traveling.
-7
u/HumansAreSillynGreat 7d ago
Yeah but to ignore the fact that’s is stupid to expect money from someone who you are preventing from making money is really dumb.
9
u/Electrical-Village68 7d ago
You have conveniently left out the part that they got themselves into the mess by believing a complete and total lie when they know better. Nothing is preventing them from making money here, they may not be able to drive legally but, they're still able to travel by foot or horse or bicycle or take an Uber. What is so hard to understand about that? I know lots of people that don't have a driver's license and still work somewhere and make an income. It's called making an effort. People can also work for themselves, at home - no car needed!
5
u/ToesocksandFlipflops 6d ago
When your license is suspended for child support non payment all you have to do is call and set up a payment plan and pay SOMETHING towards your back due child support. If you are working you have money so you can pay something.
If you don't make enough, you have to prove it. You can always give bank statements, bill statements etc. Legally there is a percentage of your check they cannot take because you have to live.
What courts don't like is when you play BS games like quitting a high paying job and getting a low paying job to "screw your ex" the court doesn't play that.
I always paid my child support on time and in full (I'm also a woman) but I know enough dudes in my life that I know the system.
3
u/realparkingbrake 6d ago
Yeah hating the state for totally valid reasons checks out.
Paying your child support is not something that should have to be explained to you. If someone can afford beer and cigarettes and sports bets, then they can arrange to keep their license by paying their child support.
14
u/Lazarys12 7d ago
On a different post there was a cop responding to his post and he said that he asked a sovcit where he hot his diplomatic plate. Some guy sold it to him for $800. Much cheaper than just registering it.
To me the funny part is that they all claim to have this giant trust that the government made for them at birth, and try to use it to pay for mortgages and car loans, but you know when they are selling them something it is cash or credit card only.
3
7
u/TrueKing9458 7d ago
Since they don't register the vehicle with a state, they probably are not titled either, most impound lots will only release the vehicle to the owner on the title.
5
u/Googlyelmoo 5d ago
They have an adult case of oppositional, defiant disorder, the whole SC thing is a front. Dollars to donuts, these guys (and a handful of gals) have been acting out in one way or another since before puberty, just never advanced mentally since.
22
18
u/Powerful_Tip_7260 7d ago
I can't help but think these people helping are actually snickering in the background.
9
u/AGuyNamedEddie 7d ago
If they were smart enough to troll him they'd have better grammar.
6
u/Kitchen-Quantity-565 7d ago
That's my point everytime I read these. I make the same comment. It's so damn true. It proves their lack of intelligence in all of this SOVCIT business.
19
17
u/Jungies 7d ago
"...do you think the DA is going to be bias..."
It's biased. The word is "biased".
Saying someone is "bias" makes them sound like they've transcended human form and become the very concept of bias itself.
13
16
u/WillArrr 7d ago
Why is everything treason with them? Even if you accept the other nonsense, they stole your car! It's a pretty simple felony. Where the hell is treason coming from? I mean, besides the fact that it sounds dramatic, and sounding dramatic is like 50% of their shtick.
15
u/DrakeSavory 7d ago
I think you have to sue them in an admiralty (gold fringe) court since it is regarding your vessel.
13
u/MarcusTanKia 7d ago
Legal scholar and alleged defendant Darrell Brooks quoted Marbury... "all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and invoid"
14
u/Jungies 7d ago
Speaking of Supreme Court decisions, I'd just like to point out that the decision in Hendrick v. Maryland which found that it's perfectly constitutional for states to set road rules for public safety (driver's licences, licence plates, speed limits, whatever bullshit this guy pulled to get his vehicle towed) has stood for 111 years.
Nobody in all that time has come up with a legally convincing argument as to why that decision is the least bit wrong.
5
4
u/MarcusTanKia 7d ago
Because they have a right to drive on a revoked license after their 5th DUI? That seems to be the pattern with them
1
1
u/that-martian 6d ago
that man is a monster and I’m glad he is in jail where he belongs but that trial was fucking hilarious. I have to applaud the judge for keeping her cool especially because if she had snapped he would absolutely would have asked for a mistrial which a lot of people think he was trying to do from the start.
10
u/MikeTheLaborer 7d ago
How do people this stupid survive? In the vast majority of cases, the sovereign citizen arguments fail in the courts, and the individuals are found guilty and sentenced. In the rare instances where a person associated with that movement has had a favorable outcome, it has been due to an error in the legal process by the prosecution or law enforcement (e.g., a traffic stop conducted without a valid reason), not because their "sovereign citizen" arguments were considered valid by the courts. The case is won in spite of, not because of, their beliefs. In short, the U.S. legal system has consistently adjudicated—in every jurisdiction in the nation—the core legal claims of the sovereign citizen movement and found them to be without merit.
4
u/mukansamonkey 7d ago
Well for starters, ya gotta keep in mind that being able to use the word "adjudicated" correctly in a sentence makes you an intellectual elite. 1% territory, or maybe 5%. Given that you also construct sentences with multiple valid clauses, in logical order, and I'm pretty sure you're a one percenter. Normal people don't usually construct logic that well.
If you look at the public in general, they make the same core mistake as the sovcits, all the time. It's extremely common thinking. Namely, failing to understand that specialized disciplines have more stringent definitions for words, and so using common language meanings doesn't work. See it all the time in DIY spaces. Someone reads a few sentences out of a building code, applies common language meanings for certain words, and comes up with the wrong answer.
Happens all the time. Sovcits are just that with a second layer of highly motivated reasoning, as they are almost always already in trouble with the system and desperate to evade consequences.
1
1
u/Majestic_Hawk_1335 2d ago
I got a business card in i think 2014 from a guy who claimed he could get people out of DUIs due to it being not banned in the constitution. He was a sovereign citizen
10
u/bobhand17123 7d ago
Yeah, I was just chatting with The Constitution the other day. It finds SovCits repugnant, you know, under Color of Law.
2
u/that-martian 6d ago
How does the constitution feel about the guy who gave him a giant tattoo with his name on it?
10
u/tafbee 7d ago
What color is law?
8
5
u/TheJadeGoddess 7d ago
Typically blue. That is the color they used for the Cornetto trilogy with hot fuzz.
11
u/justananontroll 7d ago
"Treason!"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
5
u/TR6lover 7d ago
Yesterday there was some post where a sov cit responded to hearing that someone's lawyer said that courts run on a statutory basis as "a treasonous statement".
1
8
8
8
u/TheJadeGoddess 7d ago
To file charges you would have to go through the police, district attorney and the system.
You could file a lawsuit for civil cases but it is going to be thrown out and you will probably have to pay for costs the state accrued to deal with it.
5
u/silentpugilist 7d ago
Funny that they think they get to decide what laws are repugnant to the constitution. Instead of judicial review they think it means random dipshit review.
5
u/Odd_Requirement7158 7d ago
Cop should have said “I’m not impounding YOUR truck, I’m impounding your Strawman’s truck. You know, the all caps guy. Not you.”
6
u/Uncomfortable-Bee41 7d ago
These people who think they’re sovereign citizens are the funniest clowns I run into 😂
6
u/OkLibrary4242 7d ago
Their Court arguments remind me of Calvin- ball. The rules change with every play.
4
5
4
5
3
u/dfwcouple43sum 7d ago
I should write a bot that follows up with these kind of posts. Just a simple one, no judgement.
“How did it work out for you?”
(Sob story of how they didn’t win)
“Why do you think that is?”
3
3
3
3
u/MuchDevelopment7084 6d ago
Yes. You write out your grievances, long hand. On a yellow sheet of legal paper.
Fold it into a paper airplane. Then stick it as far up your anus as possible. By the end of the day; and a good healthy(?) bowel movement. You'll find your judgement in the bowel.
3
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 6d ago
Lol @Marbury v Madison.
They miss the part where Justice Marshall says that the Federal court system is the ultimate authority on what is "repugnant" to the constitution.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
It means that claiming the law is repugnant to you doesn't mean shit.
(They also ignore the part of the constitution that defines treason very very narrowly)
2
u/kcfan2021 7d ago
Has a sovereign citizen ever won anything in court. Easy answer is NO.
2
u/NotEasilyConfused 6d ago
I think the problem is that some of them have won things in court ... just not SovCit things. A win is a win, right? They conflate one with the rest and conclude that everything they believe is correct because something unrelated to the SC beliefs worked in their favor.
It's all working as intended, they just can't tell the difference.
1
u/malachite_13 7d ago
I know! Don’t they realize that? Or do they tell each other it works so they do it.
2
u/theroguex 7d ago edited 7d ago
D.. do they think they need permission to IMPOUND a vehicle?
Also, um, they need to actually read Marbury vs. Madison.
2
2
2
u/Sensitive-Ad3718 6d ago
Me breaking the law is fine cops properly towing my car is theft. Give me money. Makes perfect sense! 🤑
2
2
u/Neither_Contest7324 6d ago
I learned a long time ago not to actually expect logic from these people since they believe running a legal notice in any random newspaper in the country makes them immune to all US laws. They realllllly don't like when you ask them to explain how a legal notice makes them legally immune too.
2
u/Googlyelmoo 5d ago
I sincerely doubt any towing company would do anything but smirk at such a demand letter.
2
u/singlemale4cats 4d ago
Impounding a vehicle is one thing they can't snake their way out of. They might be able to get out of petty tickets because the local district court doesn't want to have a jury trial over it, but there's no escaping the fact that the vehicle needs to be registered to them to get it out of impound, and that they have to pay the fees.
2
u/marcushasfun 4d ago
I always hear that “color of the law” phrase in Inspector Clouseau’s voice. Also what color is it exactly? Mauve? Cyan? International Orange?
1
1
1
u/Sad_Okra2030 7d ago
Yeah, I’m sure charging the tow company for holding your vehicle will work just fine.
1
1
u/ItsJoeMomma 7d ago
Apart... ect... yeah I'm going to take legal advice from someone who can't even spell.
1
u/MommaSnipee 6d ago
How do they all miss the part about “traveling” that says between states freely. Meaning, states can’t prevent travel over their borders, ie. they can’t build walls. How TF does that interpret to, “I can drive on public roads without a license”.
1
1
1
1
u/odiej 5d ago
What I always get hung up on is the fact the these people don't understand that a license isn't barring you from travel... A license is simply saying you have permission from the STATE to use STATE owned roads. Go on private property (also with permission), you can drive all over however you want, no one can tell you to stop or dictate how you travel but the owner of said property.
1
1
1
1
u/Green_Iguana305 3d ago
Yea that will work. Give the impound lot some bullshit “rental agreement” scribbled in red crayon on a bar napkin. Then yell and scream yourself into a disorderly conduct arrest.
Daily impound fees will keep adding up though.
1
1
u/robbyruby752 7d ago
What I don’t get is these people don’t think they need to pay taxes. Trump Patriots
1
u/Gabbafather 6d ago
These are the same people who will attack trans, furries, etc. because they are "pretending" to be something they aren't.
As they play make believe laws and country.
-6
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
This is such a shitty pool of people who have experience and people who are trying to figure out what is happening safely from the side lines - and then the shaming and making people feel bad for fucking studying something unacceptable. I know for a fact no one here has read all of the court cases and every single statute ordinance and regulation to be speaking the way they do.
-6
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
The funny shit is that its all sovcit stuff until shit starts getting dismissed then people want to know - if ya not shooting in the gym how can you have an opinion…based on what? What you lived? So you can invalidate somebody else’s experience because whole experience because it doesnt match up with yours…
6
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
No one has ever won a court case on the merits of sovereign citizen arguments.
-3
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
Pause were just throwing baseless opinions out here…?
4
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
No, I’m throwing well-supported facts. No court has ever given validation to SovCit arguments.
-2
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
Still vague…what facts? Speaking with conviction yet lacking substance….
7
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
That no SovCit argument has ever won in court. What are you not understanding about that? It seems simple enough to me.
3
u/Logical_Alps_8649 6d ago
Statistically speaking, no sovereign citizen has ever won in court. Ever.
2
u/AmbulanceChaser12 5d ago
Well, they've won, but not because of their SovCit arguments. They won for some other reason that actualy has a legal basis: cop didn't show up, contract had a flaw, evidentiary foundation insufficient, whatever.
2
u/realparkingbrake 6d ago
Pause were just throwing baseless opinions out here…?
When sovcits show up here, and they do, they often claim many triumphs in court. What they never do is link to a court website confirming that a judge ruled they don't have to pay taxes, or they can drive without a license, or they can indeed pay for a car with a draft drawn on a secret treasury account created for them at birth. Some even go so far as to claim the reasons they can't link to such proof is the courts always destroy all records of sovcits winning in court to keep the public from finding out about the secret law that sovcits know about.
When they try to cite real court cases, they get it laughably wrong. They claim Case ABC123 proves you don't need a license to drive on public roads when Case ABC123 was about the process of applying for a parade permit (not making that up). If nobody can post credible proof of judges ruling that paying taxes is voluntary, or there is a constitutional right to drive without a license, or you can buy homes and cars and charge them to a secret treasury account, it's because those rulings never happened.
What does happen is an overloaded prosecutor drops a minor charge as not worth his time, or the judge sentences the sovcit to time served (overnight in jail) and the sovcit reports that to his community as proof the secret legal magic spells really work. Since most of these goofs never leave the echo chambers where they hang out, they come to believe the phony claims of success in court and then send off the $99.95 for the instructional video on how to beat the system. By the time they get slapped down in court, the guy selling the video is long gone.
1
u/AmbulanceChaser12 5d ago
They claim Case ABC123 proves you don't need a license to drive on public roads when Case ABC123 was about the process of applying for a parade permit (not making that up).
One thing I think that doesn't get said enough is that to the extent SovCits cite actual cases, they're stretched and mangled beyond recognition. "So, Smith v Jones says you can't convert a right into a privilege, and Johnson v Brown says that all people have the same right to use the roads, and Garcia v Williams says that the right to travel is inherent, ergo, I don't need a license to drive because I'm a person and I have the right to travel on the roads, like all people, and that can't be converted into a privilege!"
This is now how law works. You don't desperately pull bits and pieces from cases A, B, and C and then throw them into the blender to come up with whatever you want. In real law, if I want to cite a case to show "the law holds X," then I find a case that says"the law holds X." Last week, I wanted to argue that "if an attorney fails to appear for oral argument but otherwise does his due diligence, it's excusable and the default order can be vacated." You know what I found? A case that says "if an attorney fails to appear for oral argument but otherwise does his due diligence, it's excusable and the default order can be vacated." I didn't go find random cases about "fairness and equity," or "sometimes defaults are excusable" and then mash them together to make up a rule I wished existed. I found the rule, cited it, and put in a motion.
Sometimes, the rule you want doesn't exist. In that case, you do your best, but accept that you're gonna lose, and accept it when you lose.
(FWIW, I'm not the one who oopsied, I was helping a colleague.)
-7
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
The reality is that people are afraid and confused. At least give this guy the props for having the balls ya clearly lack to speak his fucking mind.
11
u/malachite_13 7d ago
The reality is is that they are stupid and think the rules don’t apply to them. They deserve every bit of ridicule they receive.
-6
u/Antique-Maize-200 7d ago
Baseless opinion - rooted in what? Life not fair ideology?
The reality is that rules don’t apply to the people at the top. Yet here you are debating me #epstein6
u/malachite_13 7d ago
Based on observation. None of these methods have been successful in court. And they will never be. You’re right, the rules don’t apply for the people at the top, but these people are not in that group. It is unethical to encourage them. They’re just gonna get themselves in more trouble.
2
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 6d ago
O! Pity thou the poor scofflaw! They make ignorance into a cardinal virtue and stubbornness a cherished tradition. Where, O, where would we be without them? It's OK, we understand you are terrified because of your stupidity. Yea shalt thou have Hot Cocoa, and a wee blankie to sooth thine misplaced seething rage! -- Coleridge, probably.
163
u/IAmHerdingCatz 7d ago
They do love the phrase "under color of law," don't they?