After reading an article that was published in the September 21st, 2012 issue of Police Patrol Magazine I thought I would show just how ignorant the author really is. He lack not only knowledge of law, but has obviously lack comprehension of the legal definitions of many of the words used in his article. Let see just what a moron this guy really is. Everything in this article is supported by case las or definitions.

Let us start with the headline for the article. "Sovereign Citizens: A Clear and Present Danger" There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. People are sovereign and citizens are subjects. The 14 Article of Amendments specifies that there are two separate criteria that must be met to be a US citizen and a citizen of the state "in which you reside". (People do not reside. They are domiciled in their state. They only reside in a state they are visiting temporarily.) The first criteria is one has to be born of naturalized in the United States of America. Well, that covers a lot of people. And based on the below case law, people are in fact sovereign.

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. (emphasis added) AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld. LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also referred to as Julliard v Greenman);

The second criteria that must be met is one must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". So if one does not volunteer to be a US citizen and a citizen of the "state within which he resides" he is not a subject. One cannot be a master and a slave at the same time. People "ordained and established" the constitutions by which all government agents are to abide. That does, in fact, make people sovereign.

The problem that police have when subjecting people to their "law" is all government agents are required to get the people consent before they can be held accountable to statutes. The constitution for the United States of America guarantees the common law and under common law, there are no statutes. It also guarantees a republican form of government at Article IV Section 4.

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).] Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).

The primary purpose of arraignment is in fact to get an accused to consent to leave the common law and be held accountable to the code. When a judge says, "You are hereby charged with violating code such and such. How do you plead, guilty, not guilty or no contest?" What the judge is attempting to do is get the accused to voluntarily leave the common law and be held accountable to the code. So if the accused enters a plea, he is actually saying, "I consent to leave the common law and be held accountable to the code. No I am not guilty." the correct response who wants to protect his common law rights is to not enter a plea and object to the code and the jurisdiction of the inferior court. It is so important that the judge get the accused to plea, he will commonly enter a plea for the accused. The problem with this he he has just committed perjury when he does. He has also violated 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights under color of law. (Statutes are color of law, because they are not really law. They are presented as such by government agents like police officers and judges.) He has also violated his oath of office, warred against the Constitution which is seditious contempt of constitution, and committed treason.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

there is and over abundance of case law that says any time that jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven on the record. No judge or attorney has ever successfully proven it has jurisdiction over people, not once, not ever. And the inferior court must prove it before it takes one more step, or the judge has committed treason.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Cohens v.Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).

The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"...there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

And here is a really good one. By the way, the term Trespass is define as an injury cause with violence of the threat of violence. It is a serious offense.

Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)

And of course, this is my favorite. Note it is cited in two cases.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Another problem that police have is statutes are not law.

WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)

Look how many case uphold that statutes are not law! You will note that statutes never use the terms people. They are written for person(s). You better know what that means, too.

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910.

Another big issue for police and the corporations for whom they work is under common law, which is guaranteed by the constitution, is if there is no injury, there is no crime. I bet you can't guess what is coming next. Ok, maybe you can. You guessed it. Another case cite that upholds this claim.

“For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of his constitutional rights.”  Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945

This is common law in action. So all of those statutes codes and regulations do not apply to people. Anyone can in fact drive under the influence and walk down the sidewalk smoking a fatty if he wants to do so. He has not committed a crime until such time as he has injured someone.

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…"  Rodriques v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

So let us take a look at some direct quotes from from the article to really get a feel for the author ignorance.

Sovereigns take legitimate historical events and obscure common law and twist and change them to fit their particular claims or assertions.

The author refers to common law as "obscure". This is typical government agent stupidity. The Constitution for the United States of America guarantees the common law and under common law there are no statutes. If the common law can be considered "obscure" it is only because government took over education for the specific purpose of obscuring it. Government agents cannot control a people who know he cannot be controlled by said government agents.

Their hope is that the ensuing confusion results in law enforcement and/or the judicial system's unwillingness to effectively deal with them.

What is confusing for police and attorneys is they cannot comprehend what exactly is common law. The magna carta is basically common law in writing. The common law is just common sense and customs and practices. Many in the legal system, (not to be confused with the lawful system) cannot fathom having a way to control people. It cannot be possible to allow people to decide for themselves how they will live their lives.

The author lacks simple comprehension of simple legal terminology. For example the term legal and lawful have two separate meanings. Legal means that something fits according to the code, which we have already seen does not apply to people and only applies to government agents. The term vehicle refers to a conveyance used in commerce.

18 U.S. Code § 31 – Definitions (a) (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

A "driver" is one who operates a vehicle. When people are traveling in their cars, they are traveling in their private conveyances. they are not driving a vehicle. This is one of the ways that government has fooled people into subjecting themselves to government rule.

The author does state that the documents submitted by sovereigns in their court cases "adds to the confusion". This is true, because law school do not teach law. This was actually a complaint made by William Blackstone in 1752 that was recorded in Blackstone's Commentaries when he complained that "Two thirds of Europe proceeds according to the common law, but not one single law school teaches it." It has not gotten any better today. That is why it is so easy to beat an attorney in court. They do not know what law is. They only kow statutes, which we have already surmised from the above case law do not apply to people.

The author has some foolish ideas about what sovereigns think and he probably has a basis for it. There is a lot of ignorance about common law from both the law enforcement side and the common law proponents side. I do agree that there are many in the common law movement that do some pretty stupid things. But police officers need to know that any time they are trying to force their statutes on people, they are, in fact, committing treason. Police, judges, court clerks and prosecuting attorneys have been getting away with it for a long time, because the only law enforcement has been those hired by the corporations for whom they work, That is changing very rapidly. The continental united states of America has reconvened and has sworn in almost 1,000,000 continental marshals, many superior court judges, including this author, and has re-established the people's grand juries in almost every state, The rest is just a matter of time.

What can be expected of this is the arrest of police, judges, court clerks and prosecuting attorneys is going to commence sooner than later. The unfortunate thing is many police do not even bother themselves to research law even to protect themselves. I was made aware of one cae in which the sovereign of the court asked the police officer who was called as witness if he bothered to read the case law that the accused gave him. The cop said one of the dumbest things I have ever heard a cop say. He said, "I do not study or read the law". Naturally, the next question was, "How can you enforce law if you do not study or read the law?" That only anger the cop for having his stupidity reveal in front of a jury and he did not have an answer.

What police should take from this article is you really need to study law for yourself to protect yourself, if for no other reason. There are cops who do know the law and do respect the law.
There are many more that do not. The problem this has is if you exceed your jurisdiction, you just might end up in court against someone who is not an ignorant "sovereign citizen". You might end up in court against someone like me who knows how to suspend the judge so the he cannot make any decision. You attorney. which you should never hire, because you are considered "of unsound mind" if you do, will not know how to overcome my court documents, because he does not know law. The judge will not kow how to overcome my document if he is a state district court judge. And if you end up in a federal court, where the judges tend to be far more honorable than state district court judges, you will not have a chance, because those judges tend to be honorable and know what my paperwork says. They know the cases cited above are law. They know the scam setup by the judicial system and will not go to prison or commit treason for you.

While some judges have ignored our paperwork, not one has ever overcome it, because they cannot. People are sovereign and case law support it. There is one case that I am consulting on in which some police officers were laughing about the Constitutional arguments and case law presented to them by the victim of there attack. This is disgraceful. When police stop respecting case law and the Constitution, they are committing treason. Just remember, treason is punishable by death and so many people are learning what common law is, you will not be able to get away with your crimes for long. You are a criminal if you force your statutes on people without their individual consent. You are warring against the constitution. Not only will you get a lien against your property, you will lose your house and anything else you own. Even if you are executed for treason, not even your family will have a place to live, because the victim will win his case against you and be awarded damages.

So, if you are a police officer, do not believe everything you read in a police magazine. I tell people all the time the correct place to challenge a police officer is not on the side of the road. Not everyone who claims to be sovereign is a danger to your physical self. That is only the stupid people who are a danger to you. But people like this author are a danger to you in a court of record, because not even the Supreme Court of the Untied States has the authority to review a decision of a court of record.

“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. (cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973))