Sovereign Citizens-- Please tell me this is fake.

Nobody upholds rights. The state upholds privileges not rights. The only concept of rights that makes sense is that of negative rights. In this case, the state is a systematic aggressor against rights, and the vast majority of other individuals and organizations do not aggress against rights. When they do aggress against rights, they can be addressed through private arbitration, government courts, or, most often, less formal means. Unfortunately there is not an adequate mechanism to address state aggression against rights.

I believe negative rights exist if they are violated. Unfortunately, statists have adopted the language of rights in order to describe state granted privileges.

I assume that you believe I have a negative right to steal your shit. Okay. Bit of an odd way of formulating it, but okay. When this right is freely violated, when I can take your things with impunity and no-one can stop me, can it be said that you have this right in any meaningful way? You clearly believe they exist, but to what degree that matters is beyond me. I may have the negative right to steal your shit, but if I go and do it anyways, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me (say, I show up with a bunch of people with shotguns and threaten to violate my negative right to give you a second asshole should you resist), then the right is at best meaningless.

So if there is noone present capable of enforcing such rights, what meaning does it have to say that you have the right to property, or, if you prefer (for whatever reason), I have the negative right to take your shit? You can claim those rights exist, but they clearly exist in the way an equilateral triangle “exists”, and neither the triangle nor the rights will keep me from taking your shit. How can such rights have any meaning whatsoever if they are freely and without further consequence violated?

My place of business; they get their revenue from selling goods and services. Why is this relevant in the slightest?

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

Oh, like Somalia in the 90s?

Those informal means weren’t particularly effective in a failed state. It looks like gangs of armed men were the replacement for police, not something which was a step up.

Bumped.

SovCitz foolishness is coming up quite a bit in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol:

Maybe, but you shouldn’t have to rule on it multiple times.
SC: This court hasn’t proven jurisdiction.
Judge: This is a reading of the charges. This is not the forum for disputing jurisdiction.
30 seconds later …
SC: This court hasn’t proven jurisdiction.

Repeat until dragged out for contempt.

I’m not a judge. But I did conduct hundreds of official hearings when I was working. And it’s all about managing the hearing.

A competent judge listens to the argument, discerns whether it raises any valid legal issues (and in sovereign citizen cases the answer is virtually always no), and makes his ruling.

If the defendant then tries to make the same argument, the judge should direct them that the ruling has already been made on that argument and any further attempts to bring the same argument up again will be regarded as contempt of court and will result in the defendant’s restraint and/or removal.

You don’t ignore the argument. You don’t listen to the argument multiple times. You listen to the argument once, you address it, and then you move things on.

In my hearings, I’ll sometimes tell them, “Lincoln needed just three minutes at Gettysburg to describe his policies during the Civil War. I’ll give you five minutes to explain why this court has no jurisdiction over you.” I’ll take notes and, at the end of the five minutes, politely explain, point by point, why they’re wrong, and then say, “We will now proceed with this hearing.” Far more often than not, they just want to be heard, even if they still don’t agree that the law applies to them.

A favorite quotation for such idjits: “Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.

This is one thing I have noticed in SovCit videos - judges rarely actually make a ruling. Not that I think it would make any difference to the Sovvy but I wonder why the Judge doesn’t reply, “The complaint says the infraction took place in West Easttown. Unless you have evidence to the contrary I am ruling this court does have jurisdiction.”

I occasionally skim watch them just to reassure me that humanity is doomed. Yesterday, I saw an interesting one where the judge called the defendant “Mr. Smith” (don’t remember the real name) during a pretrial hearing. The guy said he wasn’t Mr. Smith so the judge ordered him to be quiet. The guy said he was the representative of Mr. Smith and the judge asked him if he was an attorney, for which he wasn’t. The judge again told him to be quiet as only Mr. Smith or his attorney could speak.

The judge said that as the defendant wasn’t in court, he would move the case to the end and if the defendant wasn’t there at that time, he would handle it as a no show and take appropriate steps, which apparently can involve having a warrant for his arrest.

I don’t watch very many, but it does seem that as more judges and cops become used to sov-cits, they are getting better at handling them.