For some reason Sovereign Citizen (however they wanna be called now) videos on YouTube fascinate me.
This is a rabbit hole I encourage you to NOT go down. It is both bottomless and does not even brush away the dust on the surface at the same time.
It is bottomless because each time a SovCidiot argument is shot down, they come up with another one. One of the latest brainless arguments is about the flag many courtrooms have. If the flag has a golden fringe around it, then they argue it is a "maritime" court with no jurisdiction over things that happen on land or outside of ports.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
I love what one judge said to the bailiff. "Do you see any water around here?"
This is also why the arguments are so shallow. They say the flag fringe means the court can only hear matters about water-related things. Where do they come up with this stuff?
The tautology is also mind-warping. They say the exact same thing over and over as if this will change matters. It does not.
BUSTED WINDOWS
I've watched police officer break windows and haul people out of cars, throw them on the ground and handcuff them. One of my favorite moments was a SovCidiot "Moorish National" who said into his camera "They will look at our paperwork and let us go." He stepped out of his vehicle and was arrested. No license, tag, insurance, etc.
Another favorite, a guy was stopped and claimed he was "traveling." The officer asked him, "Where are you sitting? What is that seat? Is that the passenger seat?" The SovCidiot just kept saying "I am traveling."
The High Court
If you ask a SovCidiot what the courts have to say, they reference a Supreme Court decision and take a couple of sentences out of context. The rest of the SCOTUS decision clearly says states have a right to regulate the use of vehicles on public highways.
Of course this is left out because it does not fit the narrative. Kinda Exactly like people who quote a verse from the Bible and leave out the context and the rest of the passage.
So has a SovCidiot ever managed to win a case in court based on the merits of the SovCidiot arguments?
No.
G'head. Prove me wrong. I'd love to read the court decision.
PROCEDURAL
I found one case that the guy won and he won on a procedural matter that was not part of the charges he faced. In other words, someone in law enforcement forgot to dot a T or cross an I in the paperwork. It happens in all kinds of cases and has nothing to do with the actual merits of the case.
THE SUPREMES
SovCidiots often like to say they will take their case to the Supreme Court.
Ahahahahahahahahaha. SCOTUS takes about 3% of the cases brought forward each year. So far, none have managed to get a hearing.
One guy, John Dalen, did manage to get his paperwork to the Court. It got tossed out on a procedural matter. He refused to pay the necessary fees to have his case reviewed. The judges never got to review his paperwork.
What happened? He did not pay the filing fees. He wanted to file for free. Was told he had to pay the fees. Rather than argue or pay the fees, he did nothing. His case got kicked to the curb.
Ya wanna chase that one - John Dalen v. South Carolina https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2020/2020-up-323.html
Meantime, I will probably continue to waste a few minute every week watching SovCitdiot videos hoping one will come up with a valid legal argument. Just call me an eternal optimist.
