Only if you agree to it. 
You don’t even need a DL in Elbow’s name. You don’t need a DL at all. You’re not bound by any man-made law unless you agree to be. (That’s the whole “creating joinder” thing)
I think the unifying aspect is rampant insanity.
So this nonsense doesn’t apply in countries that use a civil law system? Sovereign citizens acknowledge that the government of France, for example, has a legitimate authority to enact laws, collect taxes, and arrest people?
Or maybe we’ll use Japan as an example.
Apparently if you get pulled over and the police officer, looking at your drivers licence, says “Elbow Humblegrum, is that you?”, you’re supposed to answer “no, that’s a drivers’s licence”
Yeah, right. It’s going to be “You’re fuckin’ nicked sonny”
Yeah, those are the magic phrases I was trying to remember.
From what I’ve read the underlying idea of many of these people is that ‘common law’ (or at least what they perceive common law to be) is the true law and statutory law is a contract that can be refused/opted out of.
Of course the real commonality here is a kind of pseudo-legal magical thinking and YMMV, but the ideas of these groups wouldn’t carry over well to countries without legal systems heavily influenced by common law.
I knew this whole thing reminded me of something from my childhood, and your explanation made the connection for me:
Lewis Carroll’s White Knight explained the names of things and the names of names in Through The Looking Glass:
If you can’t understand it, that probably means you understand it.
(Didn’t somebody say something like that about quantum physics? Was it Feynman? Or maybe Wolfgang Pauli, of “not even wrong” fame?)
In the United States, they are fond of citing the Uniform Commercial Code, as Cecil has pointed out (see Post #12 above). Interestingly, as Rooke pointed out in Meads v Meads, even in Canada they are fond of citing the UCC along with various finer points of the U. S. Constitution. :dubious: I wonder if they do that in England and elsewhere too.
That’s the part that gets me. If these guys were making some kind of anarchy argument, I could at least see where they were coming from; like an argument that they’re not morally bound by an authority that they didn’t consent to.
But when they start citing laws and declaring these laws place them beyond the reach of the law, their arguments aren’t even self-consistent. If you’re outside the legal system, then the legal system can’t do anything to you - including placing outside of the legal system. A law that says laws have no effect is self-negating.
They consider all interactions with government(including obeying statutes) to be an offer to do business. (That’s why they cite the UCC, it’s contract law.) Rejecting that offer is how they claim, for example, they can drive without a license.
Accepting the offer binds them to follow that law(creating joinder).
I posted this in another thread regarding sovereign citizens:
These so-called sovereign citizens only seem to think about the advantages of being outside the law, such as not having to pay taxes.
They don’t seem to think about the disadvantages of being outside the law.
Of course, the government and the courts are not going to allow someone to be able to declare themselves outside the law, so this is all moot, but I wonder if these sovereign citizens have really thought about the implications of what they are asking for.
“Gun nut” intersects with “sovereign citizen” to a certain extent (as in the “sovereign citizen” circle is almost entirely inside the “gun nuts” circle on the Venn diagram). I’m sure they’re all convinced that they have plenty of protection all by themselves.
And how exactly is refusing to cooperate supposed to work?
These idiots need to imagine a real situation that’s taking place outside the legal system. When a mugger comes up, points a gun at you, and demands all your money, he’s not seeking to open a negotiation with you. And you don’t get to reject his offer.
But the sovereign citizens want to have it both ways. They want to be free to refuse to acknowledge any legal authority. But they want that legal authority to keep obeying the law the sovereign citizen is refusing to acknowledge.
Maybe robby has the right idea. Sovereign citizens should be allowed to withdraw from the legal system. They won’t have to pay taxes and fill out any paperwork. But anyone who commits a crime against a sovereign citizen will face no legal repercussions.
Let’s see how long the sovereign citizen movement lasts.
It’s kinda like a reverse ponzi scheme - instead of the scam collapsing all at once when there isn’t a greater fool - these idiots are “disappeared” one by one after the judicial system has had enough of them.
I had an attorney that had one as a client and the exasperation he felt was palpable. He really was trying to help the guy, but his client just refused to believe him and kept filing frivolous motions.
It really sad as they all seem to really believe this stuff - and no amount of logic seems to persuade them. Only cold hard realities of losing your house or ending up in prison (assuming they commit a crime - just believing this stuff isn’t an issue if you don’t break the law) will probably make them see the light.
I don’t think it will ever die out. We seem to have a steady supply of stupid people that believe in conspiracy theories and fall for scams - and they come from all walks of life.
I believe Chelsea’s father in law fell for a version of the 419 scam not once, but twice.
This makes it interesting within the UK context, as guns aren’t so readily available here, and one certainly can’t make a show of collecting/hoarding them.
As long as you’re traveling, rather than driving, you’re in the clear.
Not necessarily a good plan. What jayjay said:
And they might indeed – at least here in guns-for-all United States. What you’ll get is self-selected groups of vigilantes “protecting” themselves and one another. Hypothetical? Not hardly. See: Bundy, Cliven, Nevada, 2014. These things tend not to end well (depending on one’s POV).
A bit tangential, but of relevant interest: In case anyone reading this thread hasn’t noticed yet, I have a nearby thread in which we discuss the extent to which various judges’ decisions, in cases like these, are internationally influential. By means of this link I hereby create joinder therewith.
I wasn’t seriously calling for a program of mass murder. But if it came to that, I don’t think gun ownership would be as much a factor as some people think.
To state what should be an obvious truth, carrying a gun does not make you invulnerable. I know everyone is going to say that’s obvious and doesn’t need to be said but many people give that truth lip service and then act as if they believed in some form of gun-related invulnerability.
Let’s imagine there’s a guy named John Q. Sovereign. Under the Robby Nemo Act of 2016, he’s declared his independence of the legal system; he has no obligation to American laws and he is outside their protection. And, by some means, this is readily discernible to other people. John is also a gun owner and is always armed whenever he travels outside his home.
How do John’s guns protect him? Sure, if somebody stops John and threatens him, he has the opportunity to pull out one of his guns and use it. But suppose somebody sees John out traveling one day and, acting out of a general grudge against sovereign citizens, pulls out their own gun and shoots John.
John doesn’t have superpowers. He’s got normal human reactions. He’s not going to be able to see that somebody is pulling out their gun, respond by pulling out his own gun, and shoot the other person before they’re able to shoot him. Instead we’re assuming people have equivalent reaction times and the person who draws first, wins the race and shoots their opponent.
So the only way John’s guns can protect him from getting shot is if he uses them pre-emptively and shoots everyone who he thinks might possibly be planning on shooting him before they have a chance to act. John essentially goes around shooting everyone he sees. Now as a sovereign citizen, he doesn’t face any legal sanction if he chooses to do this. But it’s the kind of possibility that prompted that other guy’s reaction of shooting all sovereign citizens on sight.
John’s shoot-first policy might protect him in the short term. But it’s not going to take long before people decide it’s unacceptable and set out to solve the problem. People are not just going to shoot John on sight - they’re going to go hunting for John and plan on ways to ambush him before he sees them. As I said, John doesn’t have superpowers - even if he has a few successes, he’s going to lose this kind of contest. And the people who shoot John face no legal penalty for doing so because of John’s self-declared status.