Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results

[Acsenray]

Cops try to pull over speeding driver - she calls 9-1-1 and demands $300,000 in exchange for pulling over -- http://www.wistv.com/story/20310937/...unswick-county

[Dewey Finn]

Existing thread here on the woman who demanded $300,000 to stop for the police.

[Spoons]

Thanks for bumping this. I got curious about what had happened to Robert Peterson, of the OP, so I had a look. Turns out that he was back in court in November. From the Coeur dAlene Press:

On Wednesday [Peterson] entered an Alford plea to a misdemeanor contempt-of-court charge for the courthouse incident, not technically admitting guilt, but acknowledging enough evidence exists that he could be convicted at trial.

. . .

Judge O. Lynn Brower sentenced Peterson to 180 days in jail, but gave him credit for 26 days already served and suspended the remaining days.

Brower placed Peterson on a year of probation and ordered him to pay court costs of $150. Peterson was given six months to pay up, as he currently doesn't have a job.

Brower nearly had to throw Peterson in jail again for contempt of court, this time for five days, when Peterson refused to stand as Brower entered the courtroom Wednesday.

[Inner Stickler]

My, that seems familiar. You didn't happen to notice auto-complete being surprisingly on the ball or anything, did you?

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

My, that seems familiar. You didn't happen to notice auto-complete being surprisingly on the ball or anything, did you?

Sorry about that. I'll put it down to a morning full of distractions and not enough coffee yet. I'm working on that....

[Muffin]

in any event, thanks for the update.

[jtgain]

I also agree that this guy is a total douche, but wonder about the need for the taser. I wouldn't have had a single problem if the first bailiff hadn't have tackled and cuffed him after not turning the camera off in the courtroom. They clearing of the courtroom was overkill and it inconvenienced everyone there and delayed justice.

The security let it go on too long and then overreacted with the taser. Those damn things can kill. Handcuffing does not.

"I'm not a person."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I also agree that this guy is a total douche, but wonder about the need for the taser. I wouldn't have had a single problem if the first bailiff hadn't have tackled and cuffed him after not turning the camera off in the courtroom.

The problem is that tackling a guy can be more dangerous for the guard and the douche than tasering.

Those damn things can kill.

If you're on drugs and have a heart condition.

Handcuffing does not.

What about tackling?

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I also agree that this guy is a total douche, but wonder about the need for the taser. I wouldn't have had a single problem if the first bailiff hadn't have tackled and cuffed him after not turning the camera off in the courtroom. They clearing of the courtroom was overkill and it inconvenienced everyone there and delayed justice.

Yes it inconvenienced everyone there and delayed justice for the other cases, but they were attempting to control the scene peacefully. He did not comply with instructions to turn off the camera and was argumentative. What could they do? Disrupt the proceedings that were underway while trying to arrest the guy? No, they followed sensible procedure to stop proceedings and clear others from the scene before attempting arrest that might or might not (probably not in this case, but they couldn't know that) get violent. Except he followed one of the instructions before they finally got to arrest - he took the camera out of the room. Ergo, the violation was ended, and he wasn't in the courtroom. That left an ambiguous situation where they might could have charged him with filming in the courtroom and failure to comply and a couple other misdemeanors, but they didn't see the point. But that put them on guard for round 2.

The security let it go on too long and then overreacted with the taser.

I kinda agree, in that they did not attempt a peaceful arrest without the taser first. I would have expected them to state clearly, "You are assaulting a police officer, I am placing you under arrest." Or something similar. Note that in general I wouldn't expect a cop to wait while being assaulted for a clear statement before proceeding, but in this case the "assault" consisted of trying to push past the officer to go down the hallway and enter the courtroom. He was instructed not to pass and was not complying and attempting to push past the officer. Ergo, a clear instruction would have been a prudent approach prior to whipping out the taser.

Those damn things can kill. Handcuffing does not.

As previously discussed, physical scuffles to accomplish handcuffing can be injurious to both the cops and the accused. Resisting arrest gets people hurt, and if they fall to the floor someone can bump a head, or get landed on hard and crack ribs, or fall the wrong way and twist a knee or an ankle. Etc.

Tasering nominally is safe - it physically interferes with muscle activity but does not permanently damage the recipient. Yes, there is some non-zero risk for some people with medical conditions or who are high on certain drugs (stimulants). That is why it should be evaluated and not the default approach to arrest. But it is still far safer overall for everyone than engaging in a scuffle.

However, I should point out that if they attempted an arrest by verbal instruction, it does not seem likely this protestor would have complied. He seems the type to argue that he was not assaulting anyone, that they have no grounds, that as a sovereign citizen he declines to grant them power over his body, etc. He would likely have kept filming and not complied with instructions to place his hands on the wall, etc. At which point, they would have been left with trying to physically force his compliance - with the subsequent risks of violent resistance - or proceeding with the tasering, perhaps with another intermediary step of warning him that failure to comply would lead to said tasering.

I think that that kind of tiered approach would have been more appropriate in these circumstances, as the protestor was not using violence at any point. But I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not know their specific regulations on tasering, or apprehension guidelines. While seeming to switch from zero to 20 pretty quickly rather than a measured ramped response, overall their response level was still pretty mild, and justifiable.

[jtgain]

I guess I'm just squirmed out by tasers. I would much rather be tackled (as opposed to shocked and then fall to the ground). It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but I think in the end, he should have had one last, "You battered an officer, sir, please place your hands behind your back. You are under arrest."

Douche: But you can't arrest me because I am not a person! You have no right because we don't have joinder and I'm recording you....

Cop: ZAP!

Then I would be fine. It was obvious the douche didn't have a weapon, so he at least should have been allowed the opportunity to submit to an arrest.

[jtgain]

Not to double post, but I had two other questions about douche's philosophy:

1) When he asked the courthouse screener if he would accept "commercial liability" for scanning his stuff, was he asking if he would pay if the items were somehow damaged by the x-ray, or did he feel he was entitled to some form of damages just for searching his stuff?

2) What is this that he's not a U.S. citizen because he wasn't born in Washington, D.C. or the federal territories, but he admits that he was born in Idaho? Is it because Idaho wasn't a state when the 14th amendment was ratified that clearly states that everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the state in which he is born and of the United States? Or is there some other craziness afoot?

[Irishman]

1) These types seem to think that the basis for complying with these instructions is a commercial transaction rather than compliance with legitimate legal instructions. Therefore, they can assert that they will comply if they are paid some outrageous fee, or some such. Thus the "commercial liability" is an attempt at legal sounding words to get the officer to agree that by virtue of performing the scan, he is agreeing to pay the "search me" fee. It's trying to find the magic words that establish a contract, by whatever corruption of legal understanding they are operating under.

2) Some of the other links explain all this. Actually, the best is that Mead vs Mead case from Canada. It really is a fairly exhaustive look at the movement, the ideas, the attempts and methods regarding any legal proceeding, just happens to have started from a divorce case.

The notion is that one can be a natural citizen of a state without being a citizen of the United States. Because the Constitution when defining a citizen has some subclause that says that "the word CITIZEN includes people from DC and federal territories" (or some such wording) that thereby it does not include people born in actual states.

At least that is one of the variations on the "sovereign citizen" premise.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Actually, the best is that Mead vs Mead case from Canada. It really is a fairly exhaustive look at the movement, the ideas, the attempts and methods regarding any legal proceeding, just happens to have started from a divorce case.

To think that the woman married this fellow. Yikes!

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by Muffin

To think that the woman married this fellow. Yikes!

In fairness, Mr. Meads (or is that "Dennis-Larry: Meads," or "Dennis-Larry of the family Meads"?) may have been a normal citizen at the time he married Ms. Meads. He may have subsequently fallen under the sway of one or more OPCA gurus.

[Yorikke]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Rational Wiki on Freeman. The section on "Freeman Successes" is quite droll.

That was a surprising belly-laugh! Thanks!

[Yorikke]

Originally Posted by jtgain

The security let it go on too long and then overreacted with the taser. Those damn things can kill. Handcuffing does not.

"Excuse me, most rational young man, would you allow me to handcuff you?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Irishman

The notion is that one can be a natural citizen of a state without being a citizen of the United States. Because the Constitution when defining a citizen has some subclause that says that "the word CITIZEN includes people from DC and federal territories" (or some such wording) that thereby it does not include people born in actual states.

At least that is one of the variations on the "sovereign citizen" premise.

Ah, that brilliant! By which I mean dumb. So they feel that since the law has the word "includes" in it that the word means "includes ONLY the following to the EXCLUSION of all others." If the law were to be read that way, it would be in violation of the 14th amendment, not to mention incredibly stupid:

Originally Posted by 14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

But as I post it, I see the next argument: They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" because they haven't consented. (And they aren't persons!)

What is the ultimate goal of these people? Does this guy think that he can take his bicycle riding citation all the way to the Supreme Court who will say that he really isn't a person? Or does it massage his ego to think that he's the only smart person in that building and that the rest of the people, employees, prosecutors, judges and bailiffs are all sheep being led to the slaughter, but HE alone knows the truth???!???

We've debated on this board, but at some point you have two choices: 1) You submit to the ultimate authority or 2) You advocate open revolution.

I vehemently disagree with Roe v. Wade, but since the Supreme Court has ruled, it IS a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. Others disagree that keeping firearms is a personal right under the 2nd amendment, but after Heller, it IS a personal right.

Not acknowledging such is tantamount to denying the legitimacy of the US government, which I would think no sane person would do because: 1) It ain't all that bad, and it is arguably the best in the world, and 2) Because of 1, I don't want to risk my life and freedom for the uncertainty that the alternative is likely worse.

[Enlightening Meditation]

Oh yeah, I've met a couple of these 'sovereign citizen' types who claimed that their name in all capital letter on ID cards and legal documents was a strawman and not the real individual, the gold fringe on a courtroom American Flag indicate admiralty law outside of the Constitution, and federal taxes are unconstitutional because the 16th amendment wasn't ratified properly (Straight Dope column here), among other oddities, etc. They are also conspiracy theorists, of course. One of them mailed personal letters in business envelops with all lower case writing, state spelled out (no 2 letter abbreviation), square brackets around name or zip code, and a 1 cent stamp (the original 1700s era price of sending one letter perhaps). Surprisingly, many of those letters reached their destination and some were returned. I guess the US Postal Service is somewhat sloppy about checking stamps.

[Blackberry]

A friend of a friend got a third strike and life in prison, and seriously believed he could declare himself a sovereign citizen and go free. He thought it was done by a complicated legal procedure, not just saying it, and he was researching how to do it.

When it's some asshole trying to get out of a speeding ticket, it makes me laugh, but when it's someone clinging to hope like that, it just makes me sad (his crimes weren't violent and didn't warrant life in prison IMO).

[Der Trihs]

Here's one especially demented website that sparked a discussion of "sovereign citizens" on another forum. And interestingly (and amusingly) given how as people have been pointing out these "sovereign citizens" have a "magic word" approach to the law, I ran across this blog by one of them that accuses the government of doing just that. It also mentions the "berth certificate" concept, that claims that a birth certificate is in fact a "berth certificate"; part of their maritime law obsession.

[Muffin]

Here's a video of the nutters trying to arrest a judge and storming the court.

Video: http://youtu.be/2pLoU6lR1xU

Summary: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/British_Constitution_Group

A nutter didn't want to pay municipal property tax (insert "common law" woo), so he was petitioned into bankruptcy by the municipality. He organized a posse (insert "constitution" woo), which then tried to, well, it's hard to describe, but included one of them standing on a table in court blaring out woo through a megaphone, and later outside another of them wooing on about "contract". You just have to watch it and try not to laugh your guts out.

Something worth noting, however, is the great restraint on the part of the police, who protected the judge, arrested the worst of the clowns, and de-escalated the situation, all without resorting to force. That impressed me, for quite honestly I don't think I would have been so responsible.

These days, a lot of protests seem to be little more than malcontents confronting police, and the police taking a hard line, which results in violence, and more importantly, results in giving the malcontents a cause. In the matter at hand, the way the police distributed themselves throughout the crowd and took their time to calm the situation worked nicely.

[Chimera]

I like how that is presented as an actual arrest of a judge and a victory for their side.

[Lumpy]

Are judges allowed to say "Bullshit" in response to a dubious claim?

[bobot]

Dopers are the best! This thread was a fun read for sure! You guys kill me, that's why I didn't mind paying so much money to join! Wait a minute.. that was something else. This is free.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Are judges allowed to say "Bullshit" in response to a dubious claim?

Yes, however, to be polite and to avoid allegations of being intemperate, they avoid profanity and instead use terms such as "frivolous and vexatious."

[Der Trihs]

I like this quote from a judge in the other recent "sovereign citizen" thread:

“[t]his teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.”

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Muffin

Here's a video of the nutters trying to arrest a judge and storming the court.

Video: http://youtu.be/2pLoU6lR1xU

That would be funny if it weren't so damn scary. This group decided that the judge in this case was acting in violation of the Magna Carta, that he was disallowing their claims and documents, and so they staged a rally at the court with several hundred people. They stacked the courtroom. Then the lawyer for the defendant called upon the Judge to produce his "oath of office". I'm not sure how a judge produces an oath. Is there a signed document, or is he supposed to stand up and recite it again in the room? Anyway, the judge refused to comply with the nutter request, so the nutter lawyer made the claim that he was in violation of the Magna Carta, which requires magistrates to produce their oath upon request (?), so he called for the people to arrest the judge. A group from the crowd storm the front of the courtroom. Several bailiffs and court officers try to intervene but they are outnumbered and overwhelmed. The crowd surrounds the judge and declare him arrested.

Apparently then what happens is the police call backup and contain the courtroom. The nutters in the crowd outside are declaring victory, and storm the courthouse, so the cops close down the courtroom. After much confusion, noise, and a very tense situation that could easily have triggered a riot, the nutters declare the "legal basis" for their proceedings (that Roger guy), and then turn the "arrested" judge over to the constables. The constables, of course, immediately release the judge and arrest a few of the more obstinate and physical of the nutters. There are claims of "assault" yelled out by the crowd against the cops, but all I see are shoving people refusing to obey the constables instructing them to clear out and calm down, and obstructing efforts to take people into custody.

Anyway, this Roger guy and the lawyer guy get some real media attention out in the streets, and propound away about their supposed legal basis for action and how the judge is corrupt and the constables don't know the law and thus arrested the wrong people (the citizens not the judge) and that they plan to proceed by calling for the arrrest of the chief constable.

I watched a snippet of the pt 2 video, the leader of the party giving some talk a couple weeks later, and starting his spin again. He starts describing that the courts are having precoordination meetings before court actions and preparing for how to act. And he says the courts are scared. His explanation for why is that they've cought the courts doing illegal things, not acting within common law and subverting the Magna Carta and all that nonsense. Real explanation for why they are scared - they're afraid the next step in these protests and arrests is to be unhappy that the constables aren't cooperating with their "arrests" and that violence will ensue.

Try as I might I did not hear any actual descriptions of the supposed illegal acts, other than the refusal to produce an oath on request. There was a lot of accusations of being corrupt, of denying documents and using falsified documents, but we can't evaluate those claims from a 10 minute video interview. Certainly not without the docs or the judge's explanation.

Something worth noting, however, is the great restraint on the part of the police, who protected the judge, arrested the worst of the clowns, and de-escalated the situation, all without resorting to force. That impressed me, for quite honestly I don't think I would have been so responsible.

These days, a lot of protests seem to be little more than malcontents confronting police, and the police taking a hard line, which results in violence, and more importantly, results in giving the malcontents a cause. In the matter at hand, the way the police distributed themselves throughout the crowd and took their time to calm the situation worked nicely.

Well, they were greatly outnumbered at the outset, and even later they still were outnumbered. Plus, this group of protestors did resort to some shoving and blockading, but were largely non-violent and eventually "handed over the arrested judge" to the constables, who were supposed to take their word that their actions were legal and promptly march the judge down to the cells, or something, rather than look puzzled at each other, then set the judge free and start handcuffing the folks who disrupted court and stormed the bench. And assaulted a cop. Things could go much differently very quickly, especially if these protestors felt they needed to enact their own court or something. Or if they had guns, which would be much more likely in the US.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I'm not sure how a judge produces an oath. Is there a signed document, or is he supposed to stand up and recite it again in the room?

Judges take an oath and sign a document when they are appointed to the court. They are not required to produce it.

[Muffin]

Hey Spoons, the Meads case made it into Canadian Lawyer, and includes a couple of comments by the spouse's lawyer.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Muffin

Hey Spoons, the Meads case made it into Canadian Lawyer, and includes a couple of comments by the spouse's lawyer.

Interesting. Note the comment by an annoyed Professor Julie Macfarlane at the bottom (concerning the article, not the Meads case).

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Malthus

Interesting. Note the comment by an annoyed Professor Julie Macfarlane at the bottom (concerning the article, not the Meads case).

Yeh, I started reading the article because it said it was about self-reps (I am dealing with one today, and just shaking my head), so I was surprised to see the article take a 90 degree turn and go on about OPCAs, given that they are in no way representative of typical self-reps.

[Spoons]

Thanks for the heads-up, Muffin!

Originally Posted by Muffin

Yeh, I started reading the article because it said it was about self-reps (I am dealing with one today, and just shaking my head), so I was surprised to see the article take a 90 degree turn and go on about OPCAs, given that they are in no way representative of typical self-reps.

That was my feeling, too. I've dealt with self-reps before, and while they make me shake my head also, none have been OPCAs.

It's a good article, but perhaps it could have been two articles: one dealing with typical self-reps; the other dealing with self- or agent-represented OPCAs.

[thirdname]

The original guy from this thread was on ABC News yesterday. Apparently in addition to the behavior that's already been discussed, he has firearms and practices open carry whenever he leaves the house. He's probably going to kill somebody or get shot by the police sooner or later. He apparently has a substantial record (he's only something like 21) and is continually getting in trouble.

One of the funnier things he said was that he plans on suing the government. In what court?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by thirdname

The original guy from this thread was on ABC News yesterday. Apparently in addition to the behavior that's already been discussed, he has firearms and practices open carry whenever he leaves the house. He's probably going to kill somebody or get shot by the police sooner or later. He apparently has a substantial record (he's only something like 21) and is continually getting in trouble.

One of the funnier things he said was that he plans on suing the government. In what court?

With these guys? Quite possibly their own made-up court, after which they will inevitably be caught by surprise when the real courts don't take their "ruling" seriously.

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by Saipowercontols

Sri Sai Ram Power Controls -Our dry type transformers are widely used across various industries to automatically control the timing of the electrical appliances.

Reported.

Hey, at least he stuck the post in an already existing thread instead of devoting a whole new one to The Product!

Also a shame that they didn't do a bit of research beforehand. Doubt there's too many of us who are in the market for a dry-thing-transformer.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Reported.

Hey, at least he stuck the post in an already existing thread instead of devoting a whole new one to The Product!

Also a shame that they didn't do a bit of research beforehand. Doubt there's too many of us who are in the market for a dry-thing-transformer.

A wet one sounds kinda dangerous.

[JLRogers]

Originally Posted by kambuckta

Also a shame that they didn't do a bit of research beforehand. Doubt there's too many of us who are in the market for a dry-thing-transformer.

That's not an issue. It's all about SEO, and links are king.

[Muffin]

Spent a pleasant hour today chatting with a freemen-on-the-land fellow while making notarial copies of some ID for him. Being the ever curious type, I asked him what he was up to, and he started in on how Canadian birth certificates are kept in England, that the Queen owns us, something about the use of capitals on a birth certificate, the nefarious reasons behind the underlying of text on a birth certificate, the importance of distinguishing between signing as John of the family of Doe rather than as John Doe, and something rather muddled about whether or not a birth certificate relates to our body or our soul. Somehow or other, he intended to get off of a marijuana charge because of all this.

Ironically, there actually was an error on his birth certificate, but that didn't bother him at all.

What surprised me is that speaking with him was enjoyable, and he was a nice person -- off the wall ignorant of how government and law works, and utterly lacking in reasoning ability, but a nice person none the less.

[Boyo Jim]

Like a puppy!

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Like a puppy!

Yes, in all seriousness, that is a good way of describing him.

[Elendil's Heir]

Just stumbled across this thread - very interesting stuff! That Alberta divorce decision is fantastic - really covers the waterfront. I have sovereign American citizens/tax protesters/Freemen types in my courtroom now and then, and just recently had my first "Moorish citizen" case. One of my favorite quotations for use in such cases: "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.

[Spoons]

I wondered what became of our friend Robert Peterson (the young man who was tased in the courthouse) since all this. I found that ABC's "Nightline" did a segment on him in January.

It's kind of interesting. He straps on a handgun whenever he goes out (apparently, this is legal in Idaho), and figures local police are the enemy.

Here's the link. Be aware, the video and sound play automatically.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Spoons

He straps on a handgun whenever he goes out (apparently, this is legal in Idaho), and figures local police are the enemy.

Oh, that's going to turn out well.

Going by that story, sooner or later I suspect we'll see a thread here about Police standoff: remember that 'sovereign citizen guy' who got tasered?"

[Muffin]

Good thing the second amendment is in place to guarantee the right of nutters to wander about armed, despite their not believing that the law applies to them.

[blindboyard]

We have them in England too. I once saw a youtube clip of a women pulled over for speeding haranguing the police about it. Can't find it now, but there's a whole playlist of such things here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMpB...41FD38BAE1E15F

No taserings, though.