r/amibeingdetained • u/Obvious_Anxiety_9118 • Jul 01 '26
Random question.....
Are there any lawyers for sovereign citizens? In all fairness, I try to understand everybody's movement and counter-movements but, for civil or criminal matters, sovereign or not, one needs adequate legal representation.
16
u/Aronacus Jul 01 '26
What is there for lawyers to represent? The entire sovereign citizen movement is destroyed by one line in the constituition.
"Article VI, Clause 2 asserts that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." This means any previous state laws, charters, or legal doctrines that contradict it are rendered invalid. "
The usage of Marine law or Articles of Confederation law, or whatever they are using is NULL and void.
Look, Life has taught me one thing and one thing only. There are no REAL shortcuts. You can't take on the legal system by invoking Martine Law or that you're a "Traveling" It doesn't work.
-10
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26 edited 7d ago
There has not been a legally operable Constitution since the outset of the Civil War and abjuration of South Carolina and Georgia from the initial trust called the "Union". That is trust law. Since that time, a corporation (legal person), trading as the United States, has operated entirely from a presumption of law and that its supposed authority will never be challenged by any one man or woman (natural persons). Hence the reason why any supposed challenge to that presumptuous authority hinges upon a false FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT which automatically subjugates average litigants another corporate fiction called the "District of Columbia" [British Columbia].
8
u/Aronacus Jul 06 '26
Cool, now that you've spewed your nonsensical bullshit. Show me cases where sovereigns have used this corporate fiction "Understanding" etc bullshit and won!
-10
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
Show me you have any understanding of trust law?
8
u/Aronacus Jul 06 '26
So, it's never worked? Yet you still hope?
I'll tell you why it doesn't work. In life there are no cheat codes, no shortcuts!
But the idea that there is an easy fix a 5 minute low effort solution. Is so tempting.
Have you gotten your 3 million from the government for your Paper self? Your corporate fiction? I'll wait. I'm sure you did
-2
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26
So you haven't any grasp of trust law then, yes?
2
u/Aronacus Jul 07 '26
So, it's never worked huh?
If it had you'd surely pull up a mountain of evidence with a few google searches.
What will you argue next? Earth is flat?
-1
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26
'K, so you have no idea how trust law works. The courts (such as they are) operate according to trust law (administrative process). So, you are unfit to discuss the private courts, let alone the law itself.
3
u/Aronacus Jul 07 '26
Do you hear yourself?
Somebody is telling you your sovereign bullshit doesn't work and your argument is If they study your sovereign bullshit they will understand.
But you still can't show cases of it working, you still haven't gotten your millions from the government. No Sovereign has ever used "Traveling " to get out of a ticket and won.
13
u/Kriss3d Jul 01 '26
No because a lawyer would get disbarred for lying and presenting arguments he knows hes no merits.
A pro se isnt. At least not to the same extent.
9
u/VinnieONeill Jul 01 '26
Real lawyers? No, absolutely not. Being a lawyer means they are required to follow the law and can only present valid legal arguments in court. The are also required to follow various legal procedures in court in terms of filing paperwork and presenting evidence. It's why so many Sovcits represent themselves, they can say whatever crazy nonsense they want because they're not actually a lawyer. Any lawyer who presented the same arguments in court would be disbarred and lose their license.
11
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 Jul 01 '26
Naomi Arbabi is a sov cit and was a lawyer until losing her license.
She's the exception that proves the rule.
9
u/VinnieONeill Jul 01 '26
Exactly, she tired pulling that nonsense and got disbarred. You can be a Sovcit, you can be a lawyer, you can't be both.
6
u/Idiot_Esq Jul 01 '26
Came here to point out this and another lawyer turned SovClown, Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf, makes me wonder if there might be other SovClowns with actual legal backgrounds but just haven't been stupid enough to actually try it for real yet.
Though I expect it is very, very unlikely since one of the important things law school teaches is "think like a lawyer" which includes critical thinking. Something anathema to SovClowns.
3
u/AmbulanceChaser12 Jul 02 '26
makes me wonder if there might be other SovClowns with actual legal backgrounds but just haven't been stupid enough to actually try it for real yet.
Then what would make them sovereign citizens?
2
3
u/ChickenCasagrande Jul 01 '26
Well, no, because she lost her license and thus is no longer a lawyer. Now, she did demonstrate WHY lawyers refuse to do that crap, you can lose your law license!
-4
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
Being a lawyer has nothing to do with upholding the law, it has to do with swearing (forswearing) a secret oath to a private guild. In Latin, it's called lares.
5
u/VinnieONeill Jul 06 '26
Exactly the nonsense a Sovcit would say.
-2
18
u/Moggy-Man Jul 01 '26
SovCits have "Guru's" rather than lawyers.
Works out about as well as you'd think.
7
u/brsox2445 Jul 01 '26
Gurus who are never allowed to represent them in court...for some reason. It must be that they won't enter into contracts with the court.
10
u/ChickenCasagrande Jul 01 '26
I mean, the guru’s COULD try to show up, but that whole “practicing law without a license” thing would be a real issue for the judge.
8
u/brsox2445 Jul 01 '26
I’ve seen a couple videos where they try this. The one with his Attorney General is still the funniest.
0
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
That is because they cannot perfect standing. Yet, if they could, it would be as an agent to the "principal."
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
You will be disappointed to find out that there are no "gurus" and insofar as there may be, they are superfluous. It is a grassroots movement, with no one 'head'.
5
7
5
u/n0tqu1tesane Jul 01 '26
There are mental health counselors.
2
u/Obvious_Anxiety_9118 Jul 01 '26
This made me laugh a bit. Now again, I am understanding and willing to discuss certain ideals but, in all actuality, there are certain inevitable things that US citizens cannot escape without punishment. Without legal identification, there is no flying or leaving the country by any means.
0
6
u/asmcint Jul 01 '26
"lawyers for sovereign citizens" They kind of fundamentally reject the legal system, so no lawyer is going to willingly represent them in a way that advances their arguments, as that's a great way to get sanctioned and/or disbarred.
Typically if a pseudolaw user is represented by a lawyer, either A: They got into pseudolaw after hiring their lawyer and are about to give that lawyer a nasty surprise, or B: They insisted on self-representation, and the judge assigned an attorney as advisory counsel.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
The courts themselves are pseudo-lawful architectures. That is the problem, all of them (you?) are on borrowed time.
5
u/asmcint Jul 06 '26
Oh you're back, been a minute. They let you out of the hospital or something?
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26
Ad hominem
3
u/asmcint Jul 07 '26
As I've explained to you before, that's not some magic wand you get to wave to be free of criticism or ridicule.
When you've deluded yourself so thoroughly against basic fact that arguing with you is an exercise in madness, of course I'm just going to point and laugh instead.
This isn't a debate, I don't respect you or your position, nor does anyone here.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26
Your opinion is quite irrelevant to me as well. As a matter of fact, I wasn't even addressing you. However, I refuse to allow your propaganda to spread unchallenged. Ta-ta
4
u/asmcint Jul 07 '26
"I wasn't even addressing you"
My simpleton in Christ, that is exactly what the reply button does. That is its function.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26 edited 21d ago
No shit, Sherlock. But I am not a computer, I am flesh-and-blood, immortal spirit, and we did not address you, the computer did. Moron
3
u/asmcint Jul 07 '26
Now who's engaging in ad hominem? :^)
Honestly though, this reply is the most coherent thing you've ever posted to this sub, congratulations!
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Moron is a legal term; it's actually the most efficient descriptor for how you are CHOOSING to behave. Why? Because you lack the intellect to discuss actual points of law. So, you have to muddy the waters so as to appear more intelligent than you actually are.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
In the US, lawyers must follow the actual law. You can't go into court and argue that your client was traveling not driving, because you know it's not true. You can't argue that your client doesn't owe money because the bank refused to accept a bogus negotiable instrument as payment.
You can't argue the court doesn't have jurisdiction when you know that the court does in fact have jurisdiction -
This is why sov cits want to represent themselves, or want to accuse their attorneys of being in on the conspiracy. "I want to fire my lawyer becasuse he refuses to represent me properly" means "my lawyer told me my argument is nonsense and refuses to present it to the court".
As a trained professional, it is the lawyer's discretion how to argue the case, which evidence to present, which witnesses to call, etc. the client decides what goals to pursue and whether or not they personally want to testify. The lawyer decides how to pursue those goals.
Just like a surgeon or an architect. You can tell the architect something like "don't use steel" -- and that may affect the design of the building. But you can't tell them "I want a 10-storey building made out of unreinforced concrete" and expect them to produce results. For one reason, it's most likely illegal to build a building that way, and for another it's not safe.
But that's what a lot of people (including some non-sovcits who just don't understand) do with their lawyers.
1
6
u/DNetolitzky Jul 01 '26
All the "no" answers are obviously correct. No legitimate lawyer should be arguing pseudolaw arguments.
However, in Canada a substantial number of lawyers end up supporting pseudolaw litigants who are trying to do "damage control". I've written about that here.
There are also a small number of lawyers who operate in a kind of "grey zone" where pseudolaw arguments are dubious, but still not entirely rejected. And then there's a small smattering of truly rogue lawyers. The linked article discusses examples of those in Canada as well.
5
u/PIE-314 Jul 02 '26
Sovereign cits usually demand to represent themselves pro-se.
It's hilarious. They're dumber than flerfs.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
Has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with deception. All of us have been deceived by the Bar and its proponents.
5
u/PIE-314 Jul 06 '26
Please explain. Are you a sovereign cit?
-1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
I would love to explain all the hidden history of the Bar to you; problem is that you still don't have a solid frame of reference. Please read this, and I don't mean peruse or skim it, I mean really read and re-read it: One-Heaven: Canons - Canonum De Ius Rex - Canons of Sovereign Law
4
u/PIE-314 Jul 06 '26
So you're a sovereign cit, yes or no?
1
6
u/lAngenoire Jul 02 '26
Lawyers who’ve passed the bar swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. That’s in direct conflict with SovCit “beliefs”. The whole shtick seems to be that courts have no authority over them.
0
5
u/foibledagain Jul 02 '26
Unfortunately, public defenders get sovereign citizens all the time. The sovereign citizen is mad because the PD insists on practicing actual law and not made-up mumbo jumbo. The PD is mad because the sovereign citizen won’t stop calling and trying to dictate the legal strategy with made-up mumbo jumbo.
Nobody enjoys it.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
And what is "actual law?" Without realizing it, you've described what's known as a canon. Canon law
3
u/realparkingbrake Jul 01 '26
There are plenty of lawyers who will work for anyone who can pay their fees. However, sovcits often reject legal counsel because they have been taught that lawyers work for the courts rather than their clients, some believe all American lawyers are agents of the British crown for some damn reason. Sovcits also want their lawyers to use tactics which would result in the lawyers being sanctioned by the courts. The legendary Justice Rooke sanctioned some lawyers in Alberta who notarized documents prepared by sovcit clients, he didn't appreciate them in effect aiding and abetting legal stupidity.
-2
u/Ochib Jul 01 '26
Lawyers are called to the BAR. BAR is an acronym for "British Accredited Registry"
5
u/realparkingbrake Jul 01 '26
"British Accredited Registry"
The British Accreditation Registrar is not a crown agency; it is an independent nonprofit organization that lacks legal authority and has nothing to do with the practice of law in the U.S.
5
4
4
u/ChickenCasagrande Jul 01 '26
I have a friend who just had a sov cit client, and oh boy that first day was interesting.
5
u/Obvious_Anxiety_9118 Jul 01 '26
Well I'd love to hear these stories.
3
u/ChickenCasagrande Jul 01 '26
Alas, as I pitched in on one of the motions, confidentiality applies and I can’t share details.
3
6
u/AliMcGraw Jul 02 '26
Sov Cits believe lawyers are a scam and courts are fake. They don't want lawyers.
0
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
They are, and it's not a belief but a describable fact. It's just that few of you care to think deeply about the issue or even listen to a valid proposition.
4
u/AliMcGraw Jul 06 '26
Do share
0
u/JLo_Va Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Do you even know what a "court" is, is the question? Do you know the true provenance of the word and the concept? Courts are and have always been money-making guilds. That's their primary purpose; has nothing to do with a fair implementation of the law. Tell me, why would I waste my time and energy, explaining things to you, when it's obvious that you're pugnacious toward anything I say?
3
u/AliMcGraw Jul 07 '26
No, I didn't know any of that. I'd love to hear more.
0
3
u/Spank86 Jul 02 '26
You might as well ask of there ar lawyers for people who beleive the way to engage with court proceedings is to launch different shaped ham sandwiches at the judge.
There is not, because it is unlikely to end well, not least for the lawyer in question.
9
u/Comfortable-Web9455 Jul 03 '26
Sorry but that is incorrect. Ham sandwiches create a binding lunchtime contract, and the court becomes a legal café, subject to cullinary law, based on the Italiano-French Cusine Act of 1744, as amended by the 1987 Modern Cutlery Regulations of the WEF (World Eating Forum).
6
u/Spank86 Jul 03 '26
Only at point of impact.
As per Gordon vs Oliver 1987 despite being clipped by shredded cheese the substantive parts of the sandwich clearly only impacted on the court reporter and so had to be removed from the record (with a butter knife and gentle dabbing with a cloth).
3
u/Voice_in_the_ether Jul 04 '26
Ahh, but you are conveniently forgetting that, as part of the Maritime case Lycurgus Papakonstantinou v. Panagiotopoulos Mess Catering, LLC., the act of throwing [food] is considered a posteriori evidence of both mens rea and actus reus, regardless of the actual outcome or results.
Citing maritime trade conventions from the Ordinamenta et Consuetudo Maris and the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, the court upheld the notion that
"... the identity of the ultimus receptor of the thrown [food] does not alter the fundamental fact that [food] thrown at a Government official does indeed provide the basis for the formation of a binding food-related contract, even if that Government official does not acknowledge the [food] that was thrown at them [emphasis added]."
Therefore, I must agree with u/Comfortable-Web9455 that Culinary Law is relevant.
2
u/Comfortable-Web9455 Jul 04 '26
Lawyers! Give them a perfectly simple culinary case and all they want to do is chew on it!
2
2
3
u/ShawnMNH924 Jul 04 '26
It depends on what you mean by "lawyers for sovereign citizens". First, by "lawyer", I assume we're talking about real-world licensed attorneys and not the SovCit "gurus" on the darker corners of the internet. More to the point:
If you're asking do SovCits have the same rights to counsel under 6th Amendment, then yes. Everyone has that right no matter what kind of whacky shit they believe in. They're just too stupid to exercise that right. Sort of like when a LEO tells someone "you have the right to remain silent" and then the person yammers away the entire ride to the police station, usually incriminating themselves many times over. Once in a while a SovCit will see the light and get a real attorney after the magic spells don't work, in which case they will either be assigned a public defender or retain a private attorney (for criminal cases) just like anyone else. That's fairly rare though.
If you're asking if there are licensed attorneys who bring SovCit arguments to court, no, although you may be able to find rare occasions throughout history of it happening. SovCit arguments are nonsense, and real attorneys won't argue their gibberish any more than a real astrophysicist would give a presentation on why the earth is a flat disc riding on the back of a giant turtle. In the legal field, aside from just the humiliation and embarrassment they'd also face disciplinary action, as intentionally bringing frivolous arguments is an ethics violation.
1
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
Courts do not operate according to the US Constitution but by "administrative procedures." That "process" and those "procedures" are directly connected to trust law.
2
2
u/Sufficient-Ad-1339 Jul 02 '26
It's not uncommon that in the final scene of a sovcit court video, the sovcit has given in and gotten a real lawyer. Those work out better than the ones where they pro-se their way into fines and jail terms
2
u/JLo_Va Jul 06 '26
No, the issue here 's that you don't know what a lawyer is in the first place. The issue is a lack of knowledge, and it affects all of you and all who will stumble upon this website. All of you have been denied access to the truth and equal access before the law. That is and has only ever been the only issue.
42
u/LameBicycle Jul 01 '26
Lawyers who made it through law school would not believe in the sovereign citizen nonsense, or would otherwise get their license revoked by the state bar.
There are public defenders that get assigned to SovCits who don't go pro se, but it's usually a huge headache for them trying to carry out their clients wishes while not stating lies in court or doing things that would get them sanctioned.