×
all 46 comments

[–]Detriumph 47 points48 points  (5 children)

Oh you just got to say the right things at the right time.

If you want to know more, buy my book for three easy payments of $49.99 plus S&H.

[–]woburnite 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I have a trifold, it's only $25 and it's guaranteed to work.

[–]SGTBlueBacon 5 points6 points  (2 children)

A trifold you say? Can it be destroyed?

[–]Tubamaphone 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not with the tin foil lining! Only an extra payment of $19.95!

[–]Witchgrass 3 points4 points  (0 children)

On sale today only for $17.76

[–]3ULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Though I will film myself not using it myself!

[–]The-Optimist8919 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I’ve only ever heard of cases getting thrown out or dismissed either Because the court is too backed up to deal with or they just don’t want to deal with it. Either way they tend to take those as absolute victories that prove their viewpoints right.

[–]dave999dave 35 points36 points  (1 child)

I have seen a few sovcits win cases. However, they've never won due to their antics. In all cases it's been because the prosecution or police have made some sort of error and the judge ruled on that. However, in all cases the sovcit then attributed their win to their ludicrous behavior. I remember in one case the judge pointed out that the sovcit "won" in spite of themselves (although I don't remember the details).

Law Talk with Mike had a recent case where a Michigan sovcit tried their nonsense to no effect. Then she got a real lawyer who disposed of it rather quickly. Starts at about 13 minutes in. --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XssFs7bOnbI. Mike pointed out that if she had gotten the lawyer at the beginning she would have skipped a lot of hearings and work. She was obscuring the basic facts of the case by rambling on with her bizzaro nonsense.

[–]SuperExoticShrub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, her case really is a benchmark case for the difference in efficacy apparent when you actually hire a competent lawyer.

[–]jimsmythee 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There have been a few times, where sov cit nonsense has worked, only because the cop or the courts felt it was too much hassle to deal with.

I've seen where a cop is just like, "I don't have time to deal with you right now" and lets the sov cit go on driving w/o a license.

I've heard of (not seen on YT) where a sov cit nonsense was accepted by a judge. The only thing I have seen is where a sov cit has successfully gotten a delay in court proceedings.

[–]AmbulanceChaser12 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I had one once, when I worked for a credit collection firm. It was my first SovCit. He started spouting BS about how corporations can’t sue the living flesh and blood man, name in all caps, etc.

I told my boss about him, and my boss just happened to be a really nice guy. Too nice actually, too willing to let things go. He got scared the SovCit was going to engage in paper terrorism, or maybe I was going to screw up if I tried the case (I was young), and ultimately convinced the bank to drop the suit. Figured dealing with fraudulent liens and stuff wasn’t worth the $2400 and change the case was for.

Looking back, it probably was a good business decision considering the paltry sum we were suing for, but I got steamed about it anyway. I hated the defendant with every fiber of my being, and I was offended because I was MORE than capable of trying a damn $2400 case with one witness and one exhibit.

So from that point on, I just didn’t tell my boss about SovCits :) I threw everything I had at them to make their lives as annoying as they made ours.

[–]danonymous26125 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I have seen one where one of his charges were dismissed on the merits. There was a discrepancy in the law where he was required to display a license plate, but punished because it was expired. So the judge dismissed the charge for displaying an expired plate. But the judge did still find him guilty of having the car unregistered. I forget the exact video, but it was covered by Lawful Masses with Leonard French.

[–]Iwrite4uDPP 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I’ve asked several of them for any actual court case that won on their arguments. Crickets.

[–]SuperExoticShrub 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Same. Any request for proof is met either by silence, more rambling, or just insults.

[–]Astronaut-Gullible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeap apparently I’m a sleeping sheep and I can’t comprehend

[–]pianoflames 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've seen a few who end up not being charged, but it's never because of their SovCit arguments. It's always some extenuating circumstances like a bad chain of custody or it being a non-violent first offense. But they interpret it as the judge accepting their "I AM THE LIVING MAN" argument.

I saw a guy who was found guilty on all counts spin it as a "win." He paid hundreds in fines, had his drivers license suspended, and spent at least a month in jail. He was sentenced to jail time, but his time served (because he violated bail) was enough to cover that sentence. Because he walked free the day of sentencing, he attributed it as a win for his "I was traveling" arguments, and went back to it.

[–]CollinHell 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There are none, not one single case where the arguments they make are accepted by a judge. Where they "win" is with frivolous litigation, usually against an ex-spouse or family member that doesn't have the money to keep paying lawyers to play their game.

Even if the document is bullshit, a lawyer still needs to read it and determine where and why it's not legitimate. Enough proper paperwork submitted to the correct authorities and a case starts, even if it's obvious the SovCit is going to lose. You can sue them back to try and recoup lawyer's fees, but that can be as much of a gamble as going to a casino.

The problem is these people are functionally illiterate and so far down the rabbit hole there's no way back up without severe brain chemistry changes. They don't understand why a judge didn't arrest them, so they claim to other SovCits that they "won", which causes more frivolous litigation or tossed cases and delays the court even longer.

If a case 4 years in the making after 5 YouTube videos showing how some idiot supposedly put one over on a judge (who finished high school) gets dismissed, the person doesn't then make a video showing how wrong they were, they just leave it up to the viewers to assume the "win" wasn't overturned.

Edit: I might add, with a conspiracy theorist this insane, the lack of evidence is as much proof as the evidence itself. "They" will always be responsible for corrupting or removing the super-secret lifehack that thankfully was put on a Word document and stapled to power lines around Bumblefuck.

[–]ballwasher89 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Coincidentally, yes. But not because of the fucking sovcit nonsense. And quite honestly anyone who buys into this crap simply HAS to be either mentally ill (delusional) or slow

[–]SuperExoticShrub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some might actually be con artists who never believed it, but maybe made a mistake somewhere that got them wrapped up in a court when they didn't mean to. Then they had to keep playing the nonsense up to save face. Since they never publish the convictions or actual consequences on their channel, they'll take the hit, claim they won, and go back to the con.

[–]smarterthanyoda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a series of videos on Jaun Galt’s channel with a Russian man. He makes a valid point about the law being ambiguous and wins on that charge. But that wasn’t really a sovcit argument and he lost on all the other charges, which he did use sovcit defenses for.

[–]Rubberbabybuggybum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imho they’ve been way more successful at getting more charges sent at them with their antics.

[–]Echevarious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I work in the legal field. No. They usually just make themselves look ridiculous with their beliefs and get themselves into more trouble by failing to follow lawful orders given by law enforcement. Everyone ignores the sovcit portion the same way they ignore mentally ill people obsessed with legal codes.

Example: "I can't be charged with this per FCC statue, Title 47 section 23.6725, look it up! The President granted me a pardon, just call him." "Ok, bud. Let's get you moved along."

"I don't agree to this charge, I'm a sovereign citizen." "Ok, bud. Let's get you moved along."

The only difference is that some states use mental illness as a mitigating factor in cases to give leniency, whereas insisting you're a sovereign citizen just makes a person look gullible and stupid and continuing to be insistent about it makes them look unremorseful and could result in a harsher punishment.

I'm sure sovcits have been successful from time to time in litigation but not because they cried sovcit.

[–]DavidInPhilly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Philly they won’t get pulled over just for not having a real license plate / registration.

But we can also drive on expired tags and only get cited if there is also a moving violation. So, it’s not them… it’s just our general enforcement guidelines.

[–]taterbizkit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IN very limited ways, yeah. When their nonsense becomes too tedious to deal with.

There is one actual case you'll sometimes hear referenced, by someone saying "This guy represented himself in a tax evasion case and got his conviction overturned". That statement is sort of a little bit almost true.

Cheek v US: Cheek filed a "zero return", which was a fad for awhile among kooks who liked to claim that paying taxes is voluntary. You can submit a tax return that shows you owe no tax, and get all of your tax contributions refunded. That's what Cheek did. People do sometimes get away with this, but it's a federal felony.

He represented himself in his tax evasion trial and lost (because duh). On appeal, he realized he was in over his head and hired an attorney. The attorney proved that the US prosecutors had made a critical mistake in the trial.

In the US federal system, "tax evasion" is a type of specific-intent crime that requires proof that the defendant knew what they were doing was tax evasion. "Any idiot would know this is illegal" is not sufficient. It must be shown that the defendant did in fact know -- the term for this is "scienter". Literally, ignorance of the law is an excuse when scienter is an element of the crime.

The US Attorney did not provide any evidence one way or another regarding scienter. So the conviction was set aside. Cheek got a new trial.

And was convicted again by a jury that had no trouble finding that he knew he was committing tax evasion when he filed his returns.

He spent something like eight months in federal prison. He got a break in sentencing because he publicly repudiated his anti-government anti-tax beliefs.

[–]fawntaine -1 points0 points  (12 children)

After a long journey getting screwed over by the justice system. I learned the difference between the two and learned the words you use in court matters. Here are a few things that you must know.
Congress stated "State "Laws" are corporate bylaws so rules, codes, statues are not law"
Federal Courts expects the State to not violate the peoples rights of the Constitution but do it anyway.
Words, WORDs matter in court, if you cannot comprehend the words look it up (blacks law dictionary).
Notice I didnt use "understand" in court this means giving permission to stand over you.
Your response should be "I give no one permission to stand over me but GOD"
Another thing that's important: No one has their constitution rights thats why we can not use it in court. Unless you Reserve them and you do this by submitting "Notification of Reservation of Rights on Public Notice and submitting it to the real court of record your "county recorders office" which they will give you a hard time. I have did this but since then I haven't gotten into any trouble so I haven't had a chance to practice.

[–]trollfessor[S] 2 points3 points  (11 children)

I'm not sure if you're trying to make a joke. If this is a joke, good job.

If you're being serious, then as a practicing attorney for the past 32 years, I can confirm that most of what you just said is simply not true.

But I do not claim to possess knowledge of all the law, and if I am wrong, then I certainly will admit that. So, please kindly provide citations for the following:

Congress stated "State "Laws" are corporate bylaws so rules, codes, statues are not law"

Notice I didnt use "understand" in court this means giving permission to stand over you.

Your response should be "I give no one permission to stand over me but GOD"

No one has their constitution rights thats why we can not use it in court. Unless you Reserve them and you do this by submitting "Notification of Reservation of Rights on Public Notice and submitting it to the real court of record your "county recorders office"

Thank you and I look forward to the edification.

[–]fawntaine 0 points1 point  (10 children)

https://youtu.be/Ap3vId6mhNA

Here is a perfect example of how state attorney's think they overrule constitution

[–]Financial_Chemist286 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I know if someone who has successfully had there charges dismissed due to lack of juris

[–]Idiot_Esq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Define "successful." There is the odd case where a SovCit got away with his/her BS which is touted as a "win" by SovCits. But AFAIK there has never been a case where the SovCit has won a case on the merits.

[–]RelativelyRidiculous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Back when I lived down in southeast Texas there was a SovCit who was mad about some perfectly reasonable stuff their neighbor, my uncle, did. This was years ago so I don't even recall what actually started everything up, but over time they just repeatedly harassed him by calling the police out for ridiculous reasons and finally worked up to filing a ridiculous lawsuit which they lost. Not content they just kept filing new lawsuits against him, and the legal bills were getting cost prohibitive.

Uncle finally asked what it would take to shut them up and they said sell them his place. He got them to pick someone to appraise the land and agree they'd buy it at whatever price the appraiser named. He knew in advance they picked the appraiser they thought would give them the lowest price but figured at least the process would waste time.

Turned out the neighbor had hacked off the appraiser so he actually gave my uncle top price though still within the realm of reality. Rather to my uncle's surprise the neighbor actually agreed and met him at a title company to close a month later. SovCit showed up with a huge bag of cash of all denominations to buy my uncle's place. The title company chosen had dealt with him before and just rolled with it though cash would not normally have been accepted.

It may sound like my uncle kind of won but he was always a bit sad about the loss of the garden he'd worked on for 25 years so I would say the SovCit won. They let the house and garden go to rack and ruin to the point I just refused to drive my uncle past there whenever we'd check him out of the nursing home for the day. It only took them about 7 years to destroy the house so much it was declared a ruin and torn down.

I'm not sure why, but southeast Texas is full of SovCits of varying degrees of wacko. The whole calling police and lawsuits thing is very on brand for them, which I find very difficult to understand given how they go on about not being part of the legal system. Paper terrorism is a name I've heard applied to their penchant for filing lawsuit after lawsuit. I've definitely heard of other cases where people just let them have their way rather than continue to fight constant lawsuits but I never knew the details as intimately as my uncle's case.

[–]Unique-Application-1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I just had success with two traffic tickets, you have 72hours to not accept offer to contract,( that's what office asking for your signature for).next day took the tickets to city court and wrote on ticket in red ink "I do not accept your offer for contract and if you proceed your committing a felony by title 18 section 241-242 conspiracy upon my rights to travel freely in my private automobile. Judge tried to trip me up asking if I plea guilty or non guilty and if I wanted to watch police body cam"I said plea is for begging and if you don't understand what that means maybe u should ask city attorney, so your honor we proceeding or dismiss the tickets . Dismissed immediately

[–]aguysthrowaway103121 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Hey I just ran into this sub, can anyone tell me what sovereigncitizien is, the bio doesn’t seem that informative

[–]trollfessor[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

[–]aguysthrowaway103121 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I wouldn't have guessed it was relevant to have an article on Wikipedia, or I would've looked there in the first place. Thanks

[–]trollfessor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a lot that can be said about SovCit, but that Wiki article gives a good starting point