Just as I always suspected-Dr. Science is the secret head of the Sovereign Citizens Movement!
I’ve also seen it before. One thing that’s funny about it is that it was posted by someone named “freeInhabitant4” who posted it with the title “Illegal Arrest” yet, at least on the first page of comments, there is not one poster who takes his side. They’re all posting nothing but derision. There are also a few attributing various liberal stereotypes to her which is totally clueless.
She keeps screaming about the Articles of Confederation. I guess she dropped out of her American history class a little early.
I blasted through the post and didn’t see mention of Alberta Associate Chief Justice John Rooke’s breakdown of the movement and how it affects the courts. Attached is a link to a LONG read, but very interesting, where he examines all the legal shenanigans that SovCits try.
From the article:
This decision by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke was the subject of much media attention when it was released. That attention was well deserved. The lengthy and well-researched decision fills a gap in the jurisprudence and scholarship on vexatious litigants by shining a spotlight on and systematically examining a category of litigants for whom Justice Rooke coined the collective term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. These litigants are distinguishable from the more usual types of vexatious litigants because they use a collection of techniques and arguments sold by people Justice Rooke called “gurus.” His decision is valuable for several reasons: it collects all of the reported Canadian decisions dealing with OPCA litigants, it describes the indicia by which OPCA litigants can be recognized, it describes the concepts they have relied upon and the arguments they have made and why those arguments have all failed in every Canadian court, and it discusses what judges, lawyers, and litigants can do when faced with OPCA litigants.
The problem is that judge’s don’t talk in a way these SovCits understand.
I am not a citizen. I am a natural-born man.
R: Even if that is true, you created joinder when you used the benefits of American citizenship.
OR: So are you right now hereby renouncing your American citizenship and opening yourself up for deportation proceedings?
I am traveling.
R: This state never signed the Articles of Confederation thus you do not have Article 4 protection.
OR: Article 4 only protects your right to travel between states. Were you crossing into another state when you were stopped?
I am not John Smith the corporation, I am John: of the family SMITH a man.
R: Well since it was the physical person John: of the family SMITH that ran the stop sign we’ll make him the defendant in this trial.
etc.
From reading the Judge’s decision it wasn’t a primer on how to talk to SovCits, I think he understood that wasn’t a good use of time. Instead he delved into the history, the beliefs and how the courts can respond quickly an effectively to the nonsense.
In sort it’s a ‘here’s what they are thinking and here’s how you stop that shit quick’ paper.
The history parts were quite well done and informative.
Actually I was thinking of Judge Hurley. In this video he actually tries to talk to the defendant in a way that he will understand i.e. SovCitSpeak. The only time it fails is at the end when the defendant is having his bond revoked but I attribute that not to SovCit but rather to being an American who doesn’t understand you don’t always get one more chance.
Saint: of the family CAD; a freeborn person. Copyright (c) 2016. All natural rights reserved. This post does not bind me to any contracts.
Apparently they think the Constitution doesn’t apply to them or isn’t real. Appealing to ancient famous-but-out-of-date legal documents seems to be a tendency of theirs, I recall hearing about the European/UK variations on these people bringing up the Magna Carta and the like.
My gold-fringed flag and I say it does. So there!
Only when at sea!
Was she even in one of the 13 original states? If not then there’s no way The Articles of Confederation could apply under any legal argument.
I think 12 states, right? Rhode Island wasn’t part of it.
Rhode Island was the fourth state to ratify, in 1778. Maryland was the last, in 1781.
You may be thinking of the fact that Rhode Island was the last of the original 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution, almost two years after it took effect, and only after its neighbors threatened to treat it as a foreign country.
You may be right. I was thinking of Vermont, the 14th state, which didn’t join until after the current constitution was adopted. They always talk about the “13 original colonies” and I just assumed that they were all under The Articles of Confederation.
She was in California. She should be citing law from the Viceroyalty of New Spain.
Someone should point that out to SC’s in California, because it would be funny as hell to see some videos of people arguing with cops about the laws of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. 
Can you imagine blacks being treated this politely? Maybe cops should carry a can of black spray paint to squirt on sovereigns’ faces. “They looked Black to me, Your Honor, I had to empty my magazine.”
I had a SC once argue that he wasn’t bound by the laws of “the Republic of Ohio.” I noted that, unlike Vermont and Texas, Ohio was never an independent republic before it became a state.
So he was right!
crap
This incident happened in March and a second incident with the woman and the police just happened, I believe yesterday? Anyway, things didn’t go as peacefully the second time as they did the first.
Korryn Gaines traffic stop
Can you imagine that there are actually black people who are sovereign citizens but don’t get gunned down in frequent run ins with police unless they point shotguns at them?