They’re convinced that they haven’t yet found someone who isn’t part of the conspiracy.
Or they haven’t muttered the proper phrase magic spell.
And my point still is that they will hide behind laws/rules that just do not exist in this reality at all.
Mentioned in the movie thread but not mentioned here AFAIK is a very powerful movie called Sovereign, released in 2025. It’s based on the 2010 West Memphis police shootings, linked in that article. Although movies inevitably alter some facts for dramatic effect, from my reading of the real-life events, the movie was mostly accurate.
It’s fun to point and laugh but some of these fuckers can be really dangerous. The story concerns a man who was a strongly committed sovcit and gradually indoctrinated his son into the cult. The end result was tragic in many ways. The son fatally shot two police officers at a traffic stop when they tried to arrest the father. Several hours later their van was located and surrounded by police in a Walmart parking lot and a gun battle ensued. Several police officers were seriously wounded but in the end both father and son were shot to death.
The point of the movie, and the story, is that these were not criminals in the usual meaning of the term. They were committed sovereign citizens.
I’ll take a criminal any day over one of these idiots, at least the criminal is operating in the same consensus reality.
Ideologically motivated to take up arms against the state is pretty much how the term “terrorist” is used today.
As a sovereign citizen, Jerry Kane did not have a driver’s license and his van was not properly registered. He was also carrying a brick of marijuana and there were two arrest warrants for him, one in Ohio and one in New Mexico.
…
In 2006, Kane was indicted for forgery and theft of a car by deception in Montgomery County, Ohio, and there was an outstanding warrant at the time of his death.
2010 West Memphis police shootings - Wikipedia
On the Gripping Hand, those laws/rules actually DO exist, in the mind palace of the Sovereign Citizens, and nothing anyone can do will dislodge them from that sad and musty place.
Yabbut, I’m getting tired of all the videos where the cop says “driving” and the sovcit says “traveling.” I’d like to see one where the sovcit says whatever they say when “operating a MV without requisite documentation” is cited.
They claim it’s not a motor vehicle and /or they aren’t operating it.
Anyone who thinks there is some way to phrase it that will put sovcits in their place is just as delusional as the sovcits who think their magic words will make it legal.
'Zactly. As has been hashed out numerous times around here, and plastered all over the internet.
It is not possible for anyone to win a battle of words or ideas with a sovcit. Not a cop, not a judge, not a poster here. And especially anyone who hasn’t read any of thread yet. The cops and the judge have the tremendous advantage over us that they’re legally empowered to escalate beyond mere words once those prove ineffective.
Which is actually an additional charge, in most places. Folks, take it from an inveterate scofflaw. If you’re going to flaunt the law, do it the cheapest, laziest way you can. At least then you didn’t spend extra time and money on your way to the pokey and getting out afterward, if it ends up there.
On my previous streak of driving with expired tags/inspection (18 months), when I was stopped I explained that I simply hadn’t taken care of them. The trooper asked if I hadn’t or couldn’t afford to take care of them. I confirmed that I could afford it, but was simply too stupid and lazy to have gotten it taken care of. He then told he he’s technically supposed to arrest me for driving with expired tags (not sure if that’s true, but my doubt would have done nothing for me on the side of the highway), and what did I think he should do in this situation?
“Tell me to get this car off the road and don’t get it back on the road until it’s legal again?”
“Sounds good to me.”
An advantage to being stopped on the highway by a state patrolman versus in town by local police is that the arrest & turnover process is a lot more effort and time-consuming for the patrolman than the local policeman. They sure will if they need to, e.g. a drunk, but if there’s a low-effort way within their reasonable discretion to end the stop without an arrest, they’ll usually take it.
‘Man’ is having a tough time as well
At least in Dallas, that holds true for the local police as well. If they can let you go home without it being likely to backfire on them, they’re going to let you go home.
“Flout”, not “flaunt”. Unless you’re going to obey the law in the most over-the-top conspicuous “look at me” way.
It’s his family that will be suffering because his obstinacy will be forcing the executors to incur legal costs that would be paid out of his mother’s estate, reducing the size of the pie for everyone. They are asking for an order he pay indemnity legal costs, but even if they get that order, and even if he can be forced to pay, it’s unlikely it will cover everything. He’s either mentally ill or a real POS.
Ehhh, it’s been in the use I learned for more than a century.
If I’m writing an article and you’re my editor, I’ll take your advice. Until then, assume I’m meaning “flaunting disregard for the law”
Kinda like a sovereign citizen, making up their own rules? 