Can “Sovereign Citizens” Win in Court? | Florida Traffic Stop

Oooh I like the cigar in the name!

This is super funny though 😂 these people being arrested have no idea what they are doing. And this breakdown is just the icing on the cake. 😅

I 100 percent usually agree with u on everything. But not this time.Im disagreeing only on the statements and paper trails that have been left out of this convo. U. Uuuuuuu. Took an oath to the Bar? Did u not?????. U took an oath to the leaders of a foreign corporation then. The United States has been a corporation since 1879 ish. If u took the oath, and ur now an attorney, u do not have the people's best interest at heart then. YOU WORK FOR THE CORPORATION AND OATHED TO IT U DID. you have up the rights to any and every common law, willingly? Especially knowing that the career u chose was wanting and willingly to fraud every single true blood American in this great company for U. C. C
Law? CORPORATE LAW. UR AN ATTORNEY AND KNOW THIS SHIT BEFOREHAND. how is it that myself and everyone can resend any papers forced apon us at birth. We can get all rights back. U KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, THE COUNTRY KNOWS IT…….but I understand, you by fear of losing the rite to practice law, given to you by the very corporation that u swore an oath to, and the very corporation that frauds every American citizen daily in every imaginable way. Ultimate power corrupts. You will cry bullshit. But really is it? Or is that ur corporate self talking?. Yes, everything the courts agreed to stands as law.

Don't lie to the masses. Do u have a fucking soul? It's fraud by the states and the foreign owned government acting as a government for America. They don't represent us in anyway. You represent that corporate scam. I've lost faith in humanity. But now I'm def over the corporate distain against the people. This ucc law u love to allow to happen, will fall. And all it's dranches with it. Better b on the rite side when that kicks off srry for the rant. But I'm srry my faith in u has extinguished. Moving on

Local warlords of the world unite!

WHAT DID THE WRITERS OF THE CONSTITUTIUON ALL HAVE IN COMMON ?THEY WHERE ALL SOVEREIGN S THE COPS TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION SO THAT MAKES THEM SOVEREIGN?

You might wanna look a little closer into this one. I need of these cases they refer to a “sovereign citizen“ I’ve never heard anyone I know call himself a sovereign citizen, but to invoke their right to travel. I just don’t know how you get around, turning in an alienable right into a privilege, and it’s worth discussing I have looked at some of these Supreme Court cases, and they differentiate between a US citizen and a State Citizen, as the ladder is not the subject of color of law statute, and that I do understand. My guess would be these people didn’t quite know how to advocate for themselves and didn’t disentangle their public side from their private side. If they were registered to vote, if they had other registrations, marriage, licenses, drivers licenses that weren’t terminated, so other things that contract you into the commercial aspects of United States and its US government, which is currently incorporated making commercial and nature. Whereas the private American, member of the several states, and therefore state citizen who ter these contracts and entanglements should absolutely be able to travel freely in their private conveyance. I’d really love to open this discussion up some more because I see what you’re reading and I can always surmise from the things that I know. Do you have any further thoughts on the matter? I would love to see more because I think there’s more to it. One of the things that is these readings that you were doing in each case they referred to “sovereign citizen“ and I know loves words and we never call ourselves sovereign citizens so, that is concerning to me. I am a US national and estate citizen. I’m a Georgian. I am without the scope of much of the United States as it relates to codes and statutes that can’t be tried before a jury with an injured party and damages…

Trezevant vs City of Tampa 741 F 2D 336 (11 Cir. 1984)

Motorist was ILLEGALLY held for 23 minutes on a traffic charge and was awarded $25,000 in damages. This sets the foundation for $1086 per minute or $1,800,000 per day,

When an individual is detained without a signed lawful 4th Amendment warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are NOT crimes), the detention is a FALSE ARREST and UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT.

People v. Lopez

"In EVERY prosecution for 'crime' it is necessary to establish the 'corpus delecti" ie. the body or elements of the crime.

People v Frey

"The 'corpus delecti' consists of two elements, namely (1) The injury of loss or harm (2) A criminal agency causing them to exist.

In other words, NO CRIME exists without a victim having suffered personal injury, property damage, or fraud at your hand. Perhaps 90% of traffic stops do NOT have a victim,, Therefore, NO crime exists.

The policy-men VIOLATE these precepts everyday. all day long. If you know your RIGHTS, and DEMAND them. you can shut down these tyrants and sue for damages. That's $1,086 PER MINUTE FOR AN UNLAWFUL DETAINAMENT!!

A DRIVER LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILES, HOWEVER, A LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE “MOTOR VEHICLES”.

3 FACTS TO CONSIDER:

1. WHAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE?

The term “motor vehicle” means: every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purpose on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

U.S. Code Title 18 Section 31 Paragraph 6.

2. WHAT DOES “USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES” MEAN?

The term “Used for commercial purposes” means: “the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

U.S. Code Title 18 Section 31 Paragraph 10.

3. TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE YOUR AUTOMOBILE ON THE HIGHWAYS

WITHOUT A DRIVER LICENSE IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

”The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Thompson v. Smith.

THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE OFFENSE ALLEGED

“1004. The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea, when it appears upon the face thereof either: 1. If an indictment, that the grand jury by which it was found had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, or, if any information or complaint that the court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged therein;”

The State has jurisdiction only over commercial operators and corporations. Free people can NOT have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right.

The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road,

and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

RIGHTS

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty.

The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.

The Right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or

automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

“Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the citizen from the ”most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation, it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange

anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.”

Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

“…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign State has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

Tell me who appointed your judge was the American Indians that lived here before us was the people who name is to this land that punch with this stretch let me know. I don’t believe it was and I don’t think they have any right to tell anybody what to do in land that they stole?

Dig deeper. Its real. And they’re right. I’ve watched cops walk away because they know the person was really correct and they didn’t need a license. Licenses and permits are your rights taken away and sold back to you for profit. You have to sign the license because it’s a binding contract that you agree to. And everything on the license is in capital letters because it’s a contract. These folks aren’t above the law”law”. They’re above frivolous laws like state statutes. But they follow the constitution as we were intended. We’ve allowed the police state to become what it is, that was wrong of us. Licenses are about control and it’s for profit.

Do you know, sovereign citizen stands for public and private mixing together, which the government or any organization can’t do also no organization can be in power

And to think it would have been easier to produce a Driver's License, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. What a shame …