# Legal Question: Does Persona Suri Juris make you above the law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 22, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084 "2008-10-22T17:08:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Starbury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Starbury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starbury)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/1 "2008-10-22T17:08:24Z")
I read an article in XXL Magazine yesterday about a rapper, Max B, who was able to get out of his record contract by claiming “Persona Suri Juris” status. Here’s the link –\> [http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=27527](http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=27527). XXL isn’t particularly thorough in their approach to investigative reporting, so I was left with a few questions after reading the following from the article: > [@](#): > > The rapper said he was able to get out of his contract through legal negotiations. He explained he’s received paper work from the New York Secretary of State that prevents [label owner Jim] Jones from pursuing legal action against Max B. in the future. He’s recognized as Persona Suri Juris. > > “I’m not even part of the U.S. Government laws,” Max B. said. “I’m not a citizen of the United States, I’m dead ass. My laws, the laws you go by, I don’t have to follow. As long as I don’t purposely hurt nobody, I’m straight.” Let’s just agree to overlook the questionable grammar of that statement. My understanding is that if he was declared “Non Sui Juris,” that would mean he was either not of legal age or not competent enough to agree to a contract, and thus his original recording contract would not be binding. I’m not clear, though, on whether “Non Sui Juris” is the same thing as “Persona Suri Juris”, or if it’s something entirely different. I’m not even sure if “Suri” Juris is the correct spelling, as I had only ever seen it prior to this as “Sui” Juris. After doing some research through google, it seems that Persona Suri Juris status is used as a way to avoid (or perhaps more accurately, attempt to avoid) paying taxes to the IRS. From what I understand of the argument, if one is declared Persona Suri Juris, that has some affect on who has jurisdiction (in this case, I assume, jurisdiction to prosecute tax evasion) over that person when it comes to legal matters. This also seems to have come up in the defense of some of the detainees at Guantanamo, though I couldn’t find much information at all on those cases. As a disclaimer, most of the information I did find was from websites that also had stories on conspiracy theories (JFK assassination, ufos, etc), so the reliability of this information is questionable, to say the least. Anyway, I’m hoping someone can give me a better understanding of what exactly it means to be “recognized as Persona Suri Juris,” and how it might be used to attain the sort of legal immunity that Max B seems to imply that he now has (or if he just got some bad advice from his lawyer). ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/2 "2008-10-22T17:20:51Z")
IANA Lawyer, but a modicum of Googling says Max B is either misinformed or insane (or both). Incidentally: Results for “suri juris” = 147 (about 30 are links and quotes from the magazine article) Results for “sui juris” = 123,000 Results for “sui iuris” = 67,300 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/3 "2008-10-22T17:26:04Z")
I think he’s trying to say he’s a moron, or his lawyer is: > [@](#): > > Cases arise where children are so young that they have no capacity to appreciate danger or to avoid it, and, hence, are non sui juris as matter of law, in which case the negligence of their parents or custodian is a matter of inquiry, and if any exists it is imputable to the infant. Other cases arise in which it may be a question of fact for a jury as to whether an infant is sui juris or non sui juris, and even if found to be non sui juris, still such infant is bound to exercise such care in avoiding the injury of which he complains as he can reasonably be expected to exercise in view of his years and capacity and intelligence and experience. _Ardolino v. Reihhardt_, 130 A.D. 119; 114 N.Y.S. 508; 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 156 (1909) _McIntosh v. Dill_, 86 Okla. 1; 205 P. 917; 1922 Okla. LEXIS 93 (As to persons non sui juris, such as infants and those legally declared incompetent, the legislature has the inherent power to authorize guardians to sell the property in their charge, and what they have the power to do by delegated authority, they have the power to do by an act of the legislature, unless restricted in both these particulars by constitutional restrictions of their respective states) > [@](#): > > Where an infant is older than four years of age, the status of that child as sui juris or non sui juris is to be determined by the trier of fact. Age alone, however, does not determine the ability of a child to care for himself, one must also consider a child’s intelligence, experience and ability to apprehend the existence of danger, take precautions against it and exercise any degree of care for his own safety. Due to the consideration of these additional factors, case law does not preclude the finding that a child over the age of four may never be non sui juris as a matter of law. A case might well arise in which the court could properly hold as a matter of law that the injured child was non sui juris even though it was over the age of four, on the ground that it is so lacking in intelligence and experience as to be incapable of appreciating the nature of the danger and of taking precautions to avoid injury to itself. Such a determination, would nevertheless require substantial evidence regarding the child’s lack of intelligence and immaturity. Republic Insurance v. Michel, 885 F. Supp. 426; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6419 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) _Mollette v. Portsmouth City Council_, 169 Ohio App. 3d 557; 2006 Ohio 6289; 863 N.E.2d 1092; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6240 (City Council is non sui juris and therefore cannot sue or be sued without statutory authorization). _Kundrat v. District of Columbia_, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9881 (D.D.C. 2000) (if a department or agency of a municipality is not a corporate body, it cannot be sued as such) ---
**Author:** ![Starbury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Starbury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starbury)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/4 "2008-10-22T17:30:04Z")
Yeah, the lack of google results and a couple of years of Latin are why I suspect they misspelled it as “Suri” instead of “Sui”. And I definitely am not discounting the possibility that Max B is both misinformed and insane. However, I should also add that I did email my brother, who is a lawyer. Unfortunately, he doesn’t specialize in criminal law so he wasn’t too familiar with the term. He did point me to this contract which includes on page 3, from what I can tell, a declaration of Sovereign Sui Juris –\> [http://www.stoptyranny.us/Declaration-Status.doc](http://www.stoptyranny.us/Declaration-Status.doc) From that link: > [@](#): > > 5.) We are acting as my own counsel in our own proper persons: In Propria Persona Suri Juris; ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/5 "2008-10-22T17:32:30Z")
Right. I found that. I stopped reading after: “I, the Sovereign demand.” I ran a Lexis search for “persona suri juris,” and found exactly one case. The term appeared in the list of appearances “x appered in Propria Persona Suri Juris.” OTOH, I ran a search for “persona sui juris,” and found a bunch of cases, the first of which was: We The People In Propria Persona, Sui Juris Noble: Hadun Asud El vs. Washington Mutual, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13310 (E.D. Ill. 2002). Here’s the whole case: > [@](#): > > Plaintiff moves for entry of a default judgment. Because defendant has not been properly served, it is not in default. The motion is, therefore, denied. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff, if he wishes to proceed by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint, must also request waiver of service by the proper form. The defendant then accepts service by signing and returning the form, or refuses to accept service by failing to sign and return the form. If the defendant refuses to accept service, plaintiff must then serve the defendant personally. Here the record indicates that plaintiff did not send a waiver form, none was returned, and defendant has not been personally served. > > We also add that **we have considerable difficulty in understanding the nature of plaintiff’s claim**. (Emphasis added.) and see, _Juranek v. Farm Credit Bank of Omaha_, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418 (8th Cir. 1995): > [@](#): > > PER CURIAM. > > Donald and Joan Juranek appeal from the district court’s 1 order dismissing their complaint. They brought an “action of ejectment” against the mortgagee of their property and the buyer of the property after foreclosure. We believe the district court properly treated the action as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, although the nature of the rights defendants allegedly violated is not entirely clear. We agree with the district court that there is no indication defendants acted under color of state law, and thus we conclude dismissal of the complaint was warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell v. Stigers, 937 F.2d 1340, 1342 (8th Cir. 1991) (state action is required element of § 1983 claim). I see a pattern here. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/6 "2008-10-22T17:34:48Z")
There’s a persistent belief among the tax protestor/militia community that there is some sort of magical ritual you can undergo that will place you beyond the reach of the IRS. You just declare yourself something-something, fill out the correct paperwork, refuse to consent to something-something, never do something-something, and the legal apparatus of the United States will be powerless. This belief has started to seep over into some minority communities. It is, of course, totally false. There is no way you can remain inside the boundaries of the United States and remain beyond the laws of the United States. You can LEAVE the US and live in the Cayman Islands, and only be subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands, but if you live inside the United States you are subject to the laws of the United States. A little thought by these militia types should reveal how incoherent the idea is. On the one hand, we’ve got this corrupt fascist communist zionist government that has betrayed all of America’s original ideals. And yet if you simply fill out a form or post the correct notice, suddenly the fascists are powerless. But funny thing, real fascist governments have no problem just taking annoying people out behind the chemical sheds and putting a bullet in their brain, laws or no laws. Why would the Men in Black from the New World Order pay any attention to the legal status of their victims? Any real fascist goons worthy of the name are going to ignore such silly things and just do whatever they want, whether that means taking money from your bank account, tossing you in jail indefinately, or summary execution. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/7 "2008-10-22T17:35:35Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Right. I found that. I stopped reading after: “I, the Sovereign demand.” Get that gold-fringed admiralty flag away from me, man. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/8 "2008-10-22T17:46:46Z")
In the event someone did successfully manage to declare themselves a sovereign nation/a diplomat/citizen of a sovereign, foreign nation while within the borders of the united states, and without the consent of the united states, they’d be an invading army. Or, as a certain rabbit says: “you know that this means war” Being given diplomatic status isn’t any better. then the US could just eject them as persona non grata, with no process. I’d be fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/9 "2008-10-22T17:53:26Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > We also add that we have considerable difficulty in understanding the nature of plaintiff’s claim. I once had to respond to an appellate brief filed by a crazy person who claimed he’d been wrongfully terminated by his employer. In the headings of the brief, I tried to identify each argument that the guy had made so that the appellate court could see which arguments I was responding to. Unfortunately, about three quarters of the guy’s brief went on obliquely about his Due Process rights. The best summary I could come up with: “Something about Due Process?” ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/10 "2008-10-22T17:56:55Z")
I have a feeling that this Max character will soon be visiting Wesley Snipes in Federal PMITA prison. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/11 "2008-10-22T19:26:57Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > There’s a persistent belief among the tax protestor/militia community that there is some sort of magical ritual you can undergo that will place you beyond the reach of the IRS. You just declare yourself something-something, fill out the correct paperwork, refuse to consent to something-something, never do something-something, and the legal apparatus of the United States will be powerless. > > This belief has started to seep over into some minority communities. > > It is, of course, totally false. There is no way you can remain inside the boundaries of the United States and remain beyond the laws of the United States. You can LEAVE the US and live in the Cayman Islands, and only be subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands, but if you live inside the United States you are subject to the laws of the United States. from your bank account, tossing you in jail indefinately, or summary execution. Here’s the cite that shows how silly most of those “idiot legal arguments” are and refutes them. [http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp](http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp) This is a great site and needs to be bookmarked by a lot of us. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/12 "2008-10-22T20:13:14Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I have a feeling that this Max character will soon be visiting Wesley Snipes in Federal PMITA prison. It would be interesting to see if Max B is being advised by any of the same people who advised Snipes. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/13 "2008-10-22T20:14:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Here’s the cite that shows how silly most of those “idiot legal arguments” are and refutes them. > > [http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp](http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp) > > This is a great site and needs to be bookmarked by a lot of us. You know what? I don’t even have to get that far. That is, I don’t even have to determine that these sort of arguments are “legally incorrect.” Most of them, probably, clearly are, but some may have a grain of historical/legal justification. At the risk of appearing unprincipled or vulgar or cynical, let me just shortcut it, though: no matter how eloquent or elegant or well-founded your legal argument – you lose the legal debate when a federal judge with Marshals and the National Guard at his disposal decides he doesn’t accept it. Since most arguments of the type we are discussing here are most commonly advanced in furtherance of political theories that would deprive the judges of their salaries and of their power to control your conduct through main force, it is very unlikely indeed that any such argument will be found persuasive when put to said judge. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/14 "2008-10-22T21:33:14Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > You know what? I don’t even have to get that far. That is, I don’t even have to determine that these sort of arguments are “legally incorrect.” Most of them, probably, clearly are, but some may have a grain of historical/legal justification. > > At the risk of appearing unprincipled or vulgar or cynical, let me just shortcut it, though: no matter how eloquent or elegant or well-founded your legal argument – you lose the legal debate when a federal judge with Marshals and the National Guard at his disposal decides he doesn’t accept it. Since most arguments of the type we are discussing here are most commonly advanced in furtherance of political theories that would deprive the judges of their salaries and of their power to control your conduct through main force, it is very unlikely indeed that any such argument will be found persuasive when put to said judge. Actually, you are very much right. But in addition to that, even if there was some loophole in our legal code or the common law that would allow someone to avoid paying income tax/declare themselves soveriegn/get their case dismissed because of X, then don’t you think that Congress would have already passed a law to close that loophole? There are thousands upon thousands of federal cases every year, and if the greatest legal minds aren’t using these arguments, then why does some guy sitting in minimum security federal prison, stroking his penis with one hand while drafting a silly legal motion with the other, think that he is the brilliant one who has figured out that since a state court decision in 1833 that no one can be prosecuted for child rape (for hypothetical example) ? My neighbor came to me last week with the whole “allodial title” nonsense. This guy is an accountant and is one of the smartest people I know, but he was ready to go to the courthouse to get his fucking land patent and screw the bank out of money. Luckily, I was able to google a court case from 1985 that showed how flawed the argument was. I guess the “something for nothing” mentality is so overpowering that it dulls the senses for a time.. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/15 "2008-10-23T02:43:16Z")
> [@](#): > > “As long as I don’t purposely hurt nobody, I’m straight.” Me too! The only downside is that purposely breaking the law “hurts” people. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/16 "2008-10-23T08:43:38Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Right. I found that. I stopped reading after: “I, the Sovereign demand.” You should have read [the website.](http://www.stoptyranny.us/) It contains some real howlers, such as this one: > [@](#): > > Step 1. Void Order A void order (which you’re ticket is, or any other fine is.) does not have to be declared void to be void. HOWEVER the public servants are now the powers that be and have acted above the law since about 1964. IF it is an IRS ticket, then they have been acting above the law from their inception. Also, you apparently need to ‘Resend your signature’: > [@](#): > > Step 2. Resend Signature. Although it is a step you must take with the above step, this steps says that the fine or ticket was done under duress and fraud, and as a sovereign you resend the waiver of you Inalienable rights. IF it is a right you can’t just waive it or set it aside because some person demands it. IT IS A RIGHT! The person’s using a lot of words and, apparently, believes those words to be magical. This is particularly diagnostic: > [@](#): > > The answer is always in the law, and when you start putting the law back on the backs of the lawless they have a habit of being the yellow bellied lizards they are, if you grab them they just drop their tails and run and hide under a rock. Why would they care? Why would they drop their tails and run away from someone waving the laws in their faces? The Soviets didn’t. People forget the USSR had a rather nice and high-minded constitution. Everyone remembers the effects of the government ignoring it completely. Anyway, it maunders a bit more before it draws out a simplistic map of the three branches of government (including placing the United States Botanic Garden in the Legislative Branch) and following with this BRIGHT RED BOLD DELCARATION: > [@](#): > > If an agent is not part of these three branches they are ROUGE! Lordy, save us from Rouge Agents! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/17 "2008-10-23T15:26:32Z")
Don’t you hate it when those rouge agents get in your face? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/18 "2008-10-23T16:07:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Don’t you hate it when those rouge agents get in your face? I have a Rouge. He’s level 51 now, but alas, no epix. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/19 "2008-10-23T22:57:00Z")
I’m a little confused. Can anyone actually say what happened with the rapper in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084/20 "2008-10-23T23:15:36Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I’m a little confused. Can anyone actually say what happened with the rapper in this case? Here’s what really happened: “The rapper said he was able to get out of his [Byrd Gang record] contract through legal negotiations.” He also makes this claim in the interview: > [@](#): > > He explained he’s received paper work from the New York Secretary of State that prevents Jones from pursuing legal action against Max B. in the future. He’s recognized as Persona Suri Juris. There’s been no lawsuit over the dispute he’s talking about. He’s just making this unsubstantiated legal claim. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-does-persona-suri-juris-make-you-above-the-law/469084.md?page=2)