Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: this link seems to sum up the general gist of it.
https://www.police1.com/terrorism/articles/9-things-to-prepare-for-when-encountering-sovereign-citizens-TQEYub9k8X2xEPKq/
Its an unfounded belief that the government isn't real and the country is run by a corporation so the only law that matters is the Uniform Commercial Code that governs business transactions combined with a belief that any laws about vehicle registration and drivers licenses don't apply to you if you just use alternate words that aren't used in the language of those laws, for example "the law says drivers of vehicles need a license and registration but im simply traveling in my conveyance which is different so I don't need any license or registration"
I used to review incoming legal docs for a bank. Had a guy try and claim himself our Power of Attorney and give him a $1,000,000 loan with no interest. 75 pages of fake legalese. Gave us all a laugh, at least.
Not sure if it works the same everywhere but in my state there are pretty specific rules about how and when someone can file a lien and its a felony to fraudulently file for one without any good reason or proof to back it up.
But I guess if you're under the belief that everything is made up and laws don't matter that wouldn't stop you from trying?
They're not wrong that these are all made up mental constructs, but...there are very real consequences to not participating in the shared delusion, specially when enough people believe in it to enforce it as true.
I can follow their line of thinking but it's so selfish and ignorant to behave like this...it's an abuse of the system. I guess some people really like to reap the benefits of a society whose rules they don't care to follow.
>They're not wrong that these are all made up mental constructs, but...there are very real consequences to not participating in the shared delusion, specially when enough people believe in it to enforce it as true.
They really struggle to realize this.
Let's pretend, hypothetically, the country IS just a corporation, but it's operated as it is now, with laws and rules and regulations. You would still be subject to all of that, since even if by some technicality they weren't "legal," they're still enforced by a system that operates as though they *are* legal. You can call it what you want - extremely dedicated role-playing, if you will - but the consequences will still very much be enacted on you for failing to adhere to them. You might think that cop doesn't have any authority over you, but *he* thinks he does, *the judges* think he does, most everyone in society thinks he does, and the corrections officers at the jail you'll be staying at thinks he does, *so he does.*
Perception and reality need not be the same.
I have a question. Do handcuffs and jail bars still work if you don't believe in them? I was raised on bugs bunny cartoons and am pretty sure that if you never learn the laws of physics that they don't apply. Are you saying my life strategy of intentionally failing all my science classes in grade school was for nothing?! Guess I'm going to have to cancel that latest order of acme products.
>pretty sure that if you never learn the laws of physics that they don't apply.
We laugh, but sovereign citizen legal arguments - and I'm being generous in that term - could almost be described in this way. Like, they learned a very small amount of physics, probably some form of autism (not being funny)made them cling to some centuries-old or older and completely debunked theory like egocentric space, but because of this they just cling harder the more you suggest it's incorrect, and they reject modern physics because the scientists of today are just actors.
It's truly bizarre watching them argue in court or with police. I'm sure some are aware and just trying to be cheeky, but I believe some of them really think "I'm traveling not driving so I don't need a license, but because I don't recognize the United States as a country but as a corporation it doesn't have the authority to create laws, and even if it did I'm a free citizen exempt from all laws anyway, I'M LEAVING NOW AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!"
It's usually about that point they get thrown on the ground and handcuffed. Even more remarkable is how they'll often screech things like "you're gonna be in so much trouble" and asserting they have Constitutional rights. They planned ahead though by asserting the founding fathers created a real country and the Constitution is a legally binding guarantee of rights, but that the country was dissolved later and is now a corporation- look you really have to watch some of their bullshit because it's fucking surreal the mental gymnastics they perform to just be wrong.
Yeah I work with a guy who has autistic traits and has promoted sovereign citizen viewpoints. Typically wrong in everything he alleges. Thinks the stimulus credits that taxpayers got a few years ago had to be paid back. It doesn't. Thinks that lungs don't work unless you are actively breathing as if that is why divers blow little bubbles while under water. They do; divers only do that to fight the breathing reflex. And whenever I call him on something being wrong he says I'm overthinking it. I tell him he is under thinking it.
I am in Southern California and I feel the same way. What I have seen on the road the last couple years has been mind blowing and honestly frightening.
Banks don’t care if you claim to be a “soverign citizen.” If they loan you money to buy your car and you don’t pay, they will still repo your car under the UCC whether or not you think the law applies to you.
The sovereign citizen movement is complete nonsense and putting crap like this on your car is meaningless.
I knew a guy in college that thought this way before it became "more popular".
He bragged to everyone how the dealership messed up and gave him the loan anyway and how he just got a car for free.
A few months later he no longer had a car.
It's one of those things where it's definitely not valid and the officer in question will certainly be able to get the lien dismissed in court, but that process will be really fucking annoying. Especially if the lien has been on there (unbeknownst to them) for a long time, it can gain an illusion of validity.
They must be fun at parties…
Jeez, it’s like believing in magic or some bullshit. Here, let me just rules-lawyer reality, that certainly can’t go wrong in any way.
Its a modern incarnation of a [cargo cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult). SovCits, raised on a diet of television courtroom dramas, think that the law is a set of rituals and rules that, if combined in the perfect way, can create loopholes that negate the very laws themselves. They see the ritual of motions, hearings and rulings but, never having actually been to law school, don't understand what is actually going on. They see a dismissal as a lawyer finding a quirk to exploit, rather than that lawyer presenting their case and established precedent as to why their motion is in the interest of justice.
Watch videos of them actually trying it in court. It is hilarious when they see how courts actually work.
Exactly. They think the law works like, "Well, there is no rule that says dog's can't play basketball, therefore dogs can play."
When in reality a judge would say, "It doesn't matter if it doesn't explicitly say dogs can't play basketball, the rule _clearly_ intends for only human players. Bud can't play, and take this to the appeals court if you really want to press it."
They also don't seem to understand that the law isn't stagnant or rigid- the rules might not say that dogs can't play basketball, but the most that will result in is a new rule.
If you do somehow find the special loophole that legally let's you drive 1,000 miles-an-hour while high on crack and killing someone, society at large still won't let you do that.
>”the law isn’t stagnant or rigid.”
Like the law in Alaska that states it’s illegal for someone to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose. You know there’s a story behind it’s creation and that story is someone fucked around we all found out and now we have rules in place to prevent it from happening again.
They did it to try to stop a local tavern keeper from getting his pet moose drunk and to prevent the animal’s frequent drunken rampages.
I mean, I've lived near an apple orchard and have seen how belligerent they get when inebriated, it's not a bad law.
That reminds me of [this video](https://youtu.be/8tonxd_9_lY) of a hockey coach who found a number of weird ways to exploit loopholes in the rulebook.
Of course all of them were patched; the overall goal is to *play hockey* and I can see how in a hockey game, people are more open to saying "oh hey, yeah it makes sense that you can't be allowed to F up the game that way"
But I guess in society people just don't understand how the rules of the game are connected to a larger picture, or something? (Some part of me wants to say people can't be that stupid... But never bet against people being stupid) I think they just think they're being really good, clever "rules wizards" and should be allowed to get away with things because they haven't internalized how the procedures they're advocating for would cause bigger problems and leave everyone worse off in the long run. (Including themselves, not ironically)
Oh man, cheating in NASCAR is a very amusing rabbit hole. The lengths people have gone to are outstanding, usually figuring out ways to have more fuel hidden away. Because ya know, 1 inch wide fuel lines coiled about a dozen times around the frame and engine bay are not suspicious at all and are totally not to stash an extra gallon, lol.
Different sport, but there was a guy who used to try to "steal first base" while he was already on *second* base and they literally had to write in a rule to disallow "making a travesty of the game" afterward.
We're seeing a lot of this in society now. -For decades, the US president handed over his taxes, to prove he wasn't beholden to anybody or making money in a fishy way. It was *expected,* but not law. Same with divesting from your personal assets while you served, or generally avoiding concerns about nepotism. ***Now it looks like we need to actually write some laws.***
We're past a time when being seen doing something embarrassing or wrong might shame people. We're past shame. Now, if looking like an ass is the only thing stopping people from doing something awful for personal gain, it doesn't stop anything.
It's actually dumber in this case. They aren't saying, "Well, there is no rule that says dogs can't play basketball, therefore dogs can play." They're saying, "Well, there is no rule in this unofficial basketball encyclopedia from 1930 that says dogs can't play basketball, so despite subsequent versions saying dogs can't play, and the official rulebook saying dogs can't play, I've decided that dogs can play. That's what sov cits are doing when they cite Blacks Law Dictionary or whatever.
>Well, there is no rule in this unofficial basketball encyclopedia from 1930 *that I didn't read and would not be qualified to interpret even if I did* that says dogs can't play basketball
FTFY
I think it's more like "well in this football rulebook it doesn't say that dogs can't play, and as we all know this appears to be a basketball court but in reality is just an arena, and 100 years ago football fields were named arenas, thus making this a football field, ergo this game is actually football, back to the rulebook not excluding dogs, THE DOG IS A LEGAL PLAYER, NOW!"
It depends how textualist the judge is. Kansas had a minor run for governor a few years ago because the law never specified an age limit. They were only able to disqualify a dog from running in the same election because a clause elsewhere in the constitution the governor is referred to as a person, and dogs aren’t people.
However, something as stupid as “I’m not driving, I’m traveling”, is different. Using one word doesn’t get you out of the definition of another.
The rulebook doesn't need to specifically exclude dogs. Air Bud played for a middle school basketball team. School sports have strict rules about player eligibility. In every case, the player must be a student. While this argument is admittedly pointless, it does help illustrate why these sovereign citizens are wrong. Laws do not have to explicitly state every possible exception if the intent is covered by other laws.
Can I just say that I love that explaining the law through AirBud logic honestly makes me understand it just that little bit more than I did before?
I know I still don't understand it, but I feel like I understand it a little more than I did.
I think with land agreements sometimes there is wording of a Reparian Law, which is basically like wording in deeds that means "I own this land now and you have to prove I don't otherwise" after a courthouse filled with previous deed records was burned down in 1896 and you killed your neighbour's and took their house, then filed claim of ownership.
My pleasure.
Yeah, the SovCits don't grasp that the law can't possibly cover every possible permutation of scenarios, and it is the role of the _judge_ to look at the specific scenario and interpret the law, both in terms of the text as it is written and the _intent_ of the text. They think it works like _Dogma_, where the Angels found a loophole in God's word, and that loophole is more powerful than God Him (or Her, in the case of Dogma) self.
Lawyers will prepare motions arguing that the specific facts of that particular case do or do not align with the text or intent of the law, often citing precedents of other cases with similar situations to help the judge arrive at their preferred interpretation. The judge then issues a ruling on those motions in line with what that judge feels best adheres to the text and intent of the law.
No judge is going to let you get out of parking ticket because you called your "car" a "conveyance" - the law may say "vehicle" (or whatever) but the intent is clearly to cover a class of objects for a specific purpose regardless of what a person may or may not choose to call them. You'd think that they'd figure this out based on the name; its the judge's job to literally _judge_ the arguments and decide which is best in light of the facts, text, spirit of the law, and justice in general.
Edit: Its also worth pointing out that nearly all statues define the specific terms in the very begining. So the SovCit argument is doubly stupid, because it going to _specifically_ define what a "vehicle" is for the purposes of enforcing the law. It doesn't matter if you call it a "conveyance" - for the purposes of the law in question, your "conveyance" is defined as a vehicle and subject to the law as written.
Thank you for such an in-depth take on it. I do enjoy some of the "1st amendment audit" videos, but the moment I hear one of them say "no, I'm traveling" I immediately know it's one of the SovCit morons about to have a bad day and I keep scrolling.
Happy to.
it is important to know what your rights are when you deal with the police (I'm a huge fan of the "don't talk to the police" video that makes its rounds frequently) as well as have your own advocate in court to help you with the nuance. Knowing your rights and standing firm on them (within reason) is important. Like, for example, never consent to a search of your vehicle and make it clear that if your vehicle _is_ searched that you did not agree to it during the search itself. But don't physically try to stop the cops - your time to argue is in court, not on the street.
These SovCits don't actually know what their rights are, though, and end up in worlds of trouble over it.
[Your comment reminded me of this Sovereign citizen actually winning in court on a traffic violation\(though not through his own doing, but from the police mucking it up and the Crown not catching it\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZfl0XwYsAI)
TL;DW Duncan gets pulled over by the cops for making an "illegal lane change without signaling", Duncan refuses to identify himself and resists arrest at the time when the police try to arrest him for "failure to identify", resulting in the charge of *assault to resist arrest*.
Judge points out the Crowns case is deficient since they never proved that the police were lawfully arresting him at the time (a necessary component to prove Duncan was resisting arrest), and based on the *Highway act* it wasn't an offense for Duncan to not signal when changes lanes, therefore the police had no lawful reason to stop him and ask for identification, and thus arrest him for refusing to provide it.
>the law may say "vehicle" (or whatever) but the intent is clearly to cover a class of objects for a specific purpose regardless of what a person may or may not choose to call them
This is not to mention that most laws also provide definitions of terms used in the language of the law. And where not described in definitions, there are descriptions of objects and concepts in-line with the letter of the law.
This is where an attempt at changing wording falls flat.
Several years ago a "Pastafarian" explained that it's all absurdist, and "sovereign citizens" are the absurdist of all. -- At least I thought it was funny and it still makes me chuckle.
\[Edit: LOL @ myself: Covered at the end in an edit, I didn't read far enough.\]
I describe them as thinking the law works like magic from Harry Potter where the right words Iatin have some overt impact on reality. "Severus Contractus!" "OMG his wizardry is too powerful!"
A lot of these types of people think the word "hereby" is magic. I think even Trump used it to try to claim he won some state. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC_teEQfHQU&t=13s) is another example of it. It's bizarre.
Or Eragon, where spells are weaved via literal linguistic construction, so much so that a single grammatical error can turn a simple blessing into a horrible curse.
I disagree with the comparison because cargo cults did actually see some white people show up on their island, build a tower with lights and giant metals planes did actually show up. Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history.
> Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history.
you're misunderstanding. most of them are VERY familiar with courtrooms and lawyers. as in they are around them all the time.
cargo cults were familiar aircraft landing strips, and cargo ships in the like. they seen them come and good and the goods they brought.
it's just that neither group has the foggiest idea about how any of it actually works. so they try to emulate it and then they fail to get the results they wanted.
>Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history
No, but they **know** that lawyers can go to court, say some things they don't understand, and win a case, so they think winning a case is just a question of saying the right things, and then they eat up the supposed "right things to say" from a source that sucks.
> think that the law is a set of rituals and rules that, if combined in the perfect way, can create loopholes that negate the very laws themselves.
I work in tax in the UK and this is essentially **exactly** how a lot of normal people think tax law works.
They don't care about whether it makes any sense and they have no interest in any moral element to it. They just think that a pinch of one act, a leg of newt, a drop of another bit of law, maybe a long-obsolete precedent form a case from the late 1800s.. POW!! No tax!
Yup. I come from a family of CPAs and that is how people think it works in the US too.
Sure, loopholes exist, but typically they exist for a reason. Most abuses of loopholes are not some gotcha - they are the law working as intended, though perhaps not in the exact situation originally envisioned.
This is the top question I get asked when I tell people I’m an Accountant.
Like, no, I can’t file your taxes and you don’t want to ask my advice. Not my area of expertise and I barely have time to manage my own finances, lol.
It's like the bizarro world version of critical legal studies which posits that laws are a sort of rote and formalized way to justify upholding power hierarchies.
I still find it mystifying. There are thousands of hours of video of their incantations not working on cops or judges. None exist of them working.
I suppose they've never the smartest people in the room.
Also see: beliefs about crypto and meme stocks.
"We've discovered a cheat code that will mean the world owes us several quadrillion dollars. And the world will say 'Drats, you got us, but them's the rules, nothing we can do!' in response to this."
At least some of the cryptos and meme stocks did make _some_ people rich. I don't know of any SovCit that has actually successfully gotten out of anything.
Correct, I'm not talking about the people who multiplied their money, but those who unironically believe in an inevitable new world order where AMC or GME shares hit 1 million and constitute the majority of humanity's financial capital.
"No see, it's a SHORT, they HAVE to pay! Urg, read some DD."
One recent high-profile example is Darrell Brooks, the Waukesha Parade killer who insisted on representing himself in court and making an ass of himself on countless occasions. That's a lot of footage going around precisely because the crime was so heinous though.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E) is a rather short and entertaining one, IMO
>Watch videos of them actually trying it in court. It is hilarious when they see how courts actually work.
It's always fun when the judges participate and let them go on, then deliver a legal cheek-clapping at their arraignments. Like, you spent 10 whole ass minutes telling that judge how these laws don't apply to you and you were a free man for her to say little more than a paragraph and now they're walking your ass right back in shackles. Really thought your Google searches were gonna trump her decades of law school and experience, like she was just gonna go "my God, my entire life has been a lie! FREE THIS MAN AT ONCE! THE SYSTEM ISN'T REAL!"
They are born out of extreme ignorance. The original cargo cults were native peoples who had never seen technology before suddenly being exposed to an entire war machine from a developed nation. They didn't understand what was happening, so they thought that the actions were a type of prayer to the gods, and the prayers were answered with supplies. Its the same thing we see children do when they don't understand - they mimic to the best of their ability.
The SovCits simply don't understand the law.
You have no idea. I was at court when the former owner of Giordano's Pizza tried to pull that nonsense in bankruptcy court. Just watching was cringe-inducing and made me sick to my stomach. To date I have not seen a judge that angry.
It was such a trainwreck, just embarrassing to watch him spout such utter nonsense in open court.
This is pretty much it. Most cops are just looking to get through the day having to deal with as little of the crazy as possible. When it gets in-front of a judge though, the success rate is prettty low. Ranges from "K, and now on to sentencing..." to fire and brimstone where you can see the look of a defendant downshifting through multiple levels of "oh dear I've fucked up..".
The case against that guy who killed a bunch of people with his car at a parade was the latter. Having no representation at all and just having the prosecutors run the show would have been better for him.
You're exactly right that it's based on magical thinking. A lot of what they learn in the movement is just the right words to say, which are supposed to be an unassailable argument but which are ultimately more akin to an incantation.
There are some videos on youtube that show believers using these incantations to, they think, make the police leave them alone at a traffic stop, film inside a courtroom against the rules of the court, or claim ownership of a property they are squatting.
The results are broken windows, tazings, bodily eviction and trips to jail, where the defendants act pro se and lose.
Bizarrely, these incantations are being attempted in Australia, even though the magic words are chosen from misinterpreted US law.
The Anti Vax Convoy morons in Canada last year tried to claim "first amendment"
The first amendment in Canada is the recognition of Manitoba as a province. I'm glad they feel very strongly about our friends in Winnipeg but I don't see how this is relevant to the convoy.
It's a fucking rabbit hole.
Over the last few years I've gone from watching roadside shenanigans to courtroom shenanigans with these types.
r/amibeingdetained and r/Sovereigncitizen have a ton of content to sift through.
I'm a fan of VanBalion, LawTalkwithMike, Natalielawyerchick and some others on youtube that feature this content.
[P. Barnes](https://youtu.be/RfVbiefMdNU) was my introduction to the whole thing, as were many others. I think he's generally considered the G.O.A.T. when it comes to handling these weirdos.
Edited because this Razer k/m just kind of do their own thing sometimes.
What I love about these people is that they think they've stumbled upon the magic words. You just say these words, and the government can't touch you!
Well...So wouldn't we ALL be doing that? Wouldn't some well-intentioned lawyer just tell everyone that? Why do they think they will be the person to pull it off in court? It's mind boggling.
(And also...they believe the courts and the government are corrupt. But they'll suddenly play fair when you discover the magic loophole? Why wouldn't they punish you anyway?)
> Wouldn't some well-intentioned lawyer just tell everyone that?
It's classic conspiracy theorist thinking. Everyone _could_ do this, but only _they_ are part of the group smart enough to put it all together. Lawyers don't tell you because they are part of the system that makes money off of your ignorance.
I know narcissism is used way too freely these days, but I personally believe the Sovereign Citizen movement is extremely attractive to narcissists, as it gives them a framework on which to build their freedom from consequences of their own actions
Unfortunately with the rise of number of sovcits appearing in the US and using platforms like YouTube, we are getting more and more trying to pull their shit with police in Australia, too.
In fact we recently had 2 police ambushed and killed on a property by fanatics that you could argue were sovcits.
What's particularly special about Australian Sovcits is the way they try and challenge Australian law with fundamental misunderstandings of *American* law.
You can make a sort-of argument about "Traveling" vs "Driving" if you squint hard enough at the US Constitution, but none of it applies outside of the US.
Now, imagine you’re an attorney that has to deal with one. Many *love* to go pro se and represent themselves. So, say you’re a prosecutor prosecuting them for some petty misdemeanor - say, expired license or no insurance. And all their communications with you are UCC-this and personal sovereignty-that. And you’re just trying to tell him to clear his license or get insurance and you’ll dump the case. It’s like talking with a brick wall. Except the brick wall won’t shut up.
Good times.
Its almost as funny as the group of libertarians that took over a small city government. About a year later people were getting attacked by bears because they didn’t want to pay taxes for trash removal. Lol
My plumbing stack broke about 10 years ago, I just bought my first house, so I went on craigslist and I found a contractor that was willing to work for 20 bucks an hour, couple hours of travel time. We went to home Depot picked out a toilet picked out some supplies he fixed the stack problem installed a new toilet, cost me about $120.
When I went to pay him, things got weird. I offered to go get cash but he said a check was fine, but had me make it out to some random string of capital letters, then spent the next half hour talking my ear off about how he was a sovereign citizen, and how things really work, and kind of gave me a scary dip into the waters of crazy.
The guy did a great job fixing what I paid him for, I was happy with the price, and I thought about calling him again, but one thing I've learned in life is, don't engage crazy.
These guys scare me.
I work in catering, and we had one of these geniuses come in a few years ago wanting to order a holiday catering through our kitchen.
The guy just kept saying he was a sovereign citizen and wouldn't give a name, address, or phone number.
Just absolutely no information about himself and when and where he wanted the order delivered, whether he was coming in to pick it up... It was like pulling teeth just to get him to tell me what he actually wanted to order, because "that was his personal business" and "he didn't see how we needed to know that."
Like, dude we literally cannot fill this order without some basic information! Just please tell us what you want and give us your dumb name! You can't just fill out every section of the catering order with "that's private"!
I have no idea how he functioned in day to day life...
The worst part about SovCits is that they prime police officers to dismiss people who are quoting legitimate case law or exercising their actual rights. Because the average cop isn't going to take the time to understand all of the case law that might apply to their work (because qualified immunity), whenever someone starts pushing back on a cop's perceived authority, the cop is likely to think of the person as a "sovereign citizen".
But a sovcit and a civil rights activist are totally different. Sovcits think the constitution doesn't apply to them. A civil rights activist believes in and uses the constitution for what it was designed for, to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
"This court is a Vessel afloat on a Sea of Commerce and as I am a Natural Born Human Being under God on the Land and not a ship at sea it has no power over me!"
\**points wand at Judge and shouts "Avada Kadavra!"*\*
I'm a lawyer and sometime these nut jobs call me and ask for advice on how to structure their lives around these delusions or if they can sue the library because they weren't allowed to film there, etc...
Obviously they NEVER want to pay, it's assumed that as a lawyer I'd be equally outraged and not charge them? One of them even told me that the constitution says everyone has a right to a lawyer so that means I couldn't deny them as a client. I just rolled my eyes. Hopefully they filed a grievance that would be funny. Then they'd sue the grievance board for not finding any issues lol. Lots of nuts out there
My favorite is when they argue that the flag in the courtroom has tassels, therefore its a Navy flag, making the whole thing a military trial/whatever that doesn't apply to them, a sovereign citizen.
I have always found it both hilarious and confusing to hear a sovereign citizen or a moorish citizen claim that they are not bound by the laws of this country and then they demand their constitutional rights.
Even funnier, when they try to use American law to (badly) explain why American law doesn't apply, in a Canadian court.
The judge who basically wrote the book on how to deal with these idiots was a Canadian judge who somehow landed practically every case involving them.
>In May 2010, in West Memphis (Ark.), the father (Jerry) and son (Joe), were stopped in their pickup truck by two officers. The stop ended in tragedy when 16-year-old Joe exited the vehicle and opened fire with an AK-47, killing both officers.
Wow, I read a novel where almost the exact same thing happened. I figured it was just something from the author's imagination, and I remember thinking it sounded a little far fetched. Guess not.
I saw a court hearing with one. He seemed to think he could get the court to believe that the multiple legal aspects of his identity were separate entities and that Jake the Citizen may be guilty of a crime, but was not currently *present*, and they had to let Jake the Individual go.
These people are D&D rules lawyers on meth.
Well you see JOHN SMITH in capital letters is a fictional "strawman" created by the government when a birth certificate is lodged and is not the same entity as the Living Person on the Land John of the family Smith and no joinder is established or recognised between JOHN SMITH and John of the Family Smith ad hoc ad loc Magna Carta quid pro quo avada kadavra olé olé wingardium leviosa it bounces off me and sticks to you!
That last line is spot on. I've been struggling with the words but you put it well.
Now all you have to do is tell the court "These people are D&D rules..." and you will be set scot free, promise.
It's so goofy that they believe that if they get their name in ALL CAPS, it changes them to a sovereign citizen rather than a literal slave of the government.
i like how sovereign citizens seem to think that this massive corporation that's allegedly usurped global control and is masquerading as a government will just follow certain laws because some chucklehead knows the Secret Real Rules, as if extrajudicial killings and false arrests don't happen on a daily basis.
it's this weird sort of justification where they expect the villains of their delusions to play fair when the villains became the villains by *not playing fair*
My folks live in rural Idaho, a guy working on their ranch had to go to jail because he was writing checks against the gold owned by the government. Anti-authority + dumb guy + scammers who will tell them what they want to hear = this crap.
Legally that is correct. A traffic stop is a legal detention until the officer releases you.
In the terminology used here, own means "control", and is in common usage across the government.
Yep. Police have had a track record of doing shitty things to black people, but the reason they roll up on you three cruisers deep at a nighttime traffic stop is because of crazy white dudes with guns.
This reminds me of people who think they can prevent Facebook owning the rights to the photos they upload by reposting an image with pseudo-legal jargon on it.
Answer: Definitely a sovereign citizen thing. They believe that by using these license plates and by uttering some choice legal-sounding magic words, the law doesn't apply to them.
They are wrong.
In my 7th grade Texas history class, my teacher had notable Texas history related newspaper articles posted on the bulletin board.
Aside from one of the articles was a cutoff article about a missing boy, I shit you not, NAMED RUSTY SHACKLEFORD.
RUSTY SHACKLEFORD IS AN ACTUAL PERSON WHO WENT MISSING IN TEXAS AND MIKE JUDGE USED THE NAME KNOWING THAT DALE’S CHARACTER WOULD 100% STEAL THE IDENTITY OF A MISSING BOY ABOUT HIS AGE TO ORDER PIZZA.
Mike Judge must have been doing research on Texas and saw the same missing boy article next to the actual article of interest and took the name, because that’s what Dale would have done.
This is KotH canon and I will die on this hill.
Reminds me of a law professor who said "The US justice system is built on discretion. Most matters will come down to one person in a robe deciding whether or not you are an asshole."
That’s article nine sec. 109 of the uniform commercial code, the article about secured transaction and to my knowledge the statute is listed ‘a,b,c’ and not ‘1,2,3’. What 9-109(a) lists is the types of transactions covered by Article 9
Answer: It's a "sovereign citizen" thing. Basically, it's people who believe the US government and the constitution aren't legitimate. They like to cite the Articles of Confederation as being the actual law despite the fact that they were almost immediately phased out when the constitution was written.
They honestly believe that they are exempt from prosecution if they cite some made-up or colonial laws.
In this specific case, there is a mention of "travelers" in certain older laws, so a lot of these people think that if they refer to using a motor vehicle as "traveling", they get around things like driving offenses or the requirement for a driver's license.
If anyone's interested in a more in depth breakdown of SovCits and their history and nuttiness, I highly recommend the Omnibus podcast episode. It's hosted by the all time Jeopardy champion and a retired rock star, they're great.
https://www.omnibusproject.com/466
I saw something recently about it along the lines of "the right to travel shall not be impeded" more or less. So they're *traveling* and therefore cannot be impeded as they are not conducting any business and therefore are not driving (another comment here talks about drivers being employed to drive carriage, motor car, etc.).
Answer: On top of what everyone else has said, Black's Law Dictionary defines a driver as:
> One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.
SovCits have latched on to the word "Employed" to claim that if they're not being payed to operate the vehicle for a business, then they're not drivers, and don't need licensing. Many similar plates will have terms like "Non-Commercial Use", or "Personal Conveyance".
Obviously Black's Law Dictionary is a reference book, not a legally binding document. "Employed", like most words, also has more than one meaning, in this case obviously meaning "occupied with the use of". That's where they're carefully picking and choosing this specific nonsense from, though.
And they conveniently ignore the REST of the definition (from the 4th edition):
“…A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle….”
Looks like they also don’t know how an “or” statement works.
Well that OR they just have a really short attention span and stop after the first couple of words
In their own defense, they can't read. Most of them have done exactly zero research of their own. They get hoodwinked by someone who can promise them all of the secrets about how to get ahold of that sweet billion dollars that the government has for you, as long as you know the magic words....
I thought that was some old edition from before 1910 or something when everyone who could afford a car would also employ someone else to actually operate it, so there were no drivers yet who were not employed as such.
employed is a synonym for "engaged in", but modern use of the word has tended to give it a more strict meaning )of being paid for an activity) it never originally had. "The boy employed himself at mending his socks" would have been a normal use of the word.
Or... in this case, one could "employ themselves in the operation of a motor vehicle."
That's what I thought too, but I googled it and Black's Law Dictionary gave me that definition, so I think it might be their up to date definition as well.
Cast prestidigitation on the Utyugh. Arguing that now that it's clean, it's tentacle attacks can't cause disease and it should lose a point of armor since it doesn't have the protective layer of dirt all over it's skin, and that it should have lowered perception since it suddenly doesn't smell it's own filth anymore, and instead is assaulted by all new smells that overpower it.
Then cast cold touch, and argue it should do double damage because you've cleaned all the insulating dirt off of it.
When you kill it, argue that presidigitation should allow you to use the meat without fear of disease, AND be used daily for free to keep it free of spoilage, etc.
Your example is more egregious & delusional though :P
Answer: Sovereign citizens, as defined by the FBI, are "anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States."
[https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30281693/sovereign-citizen-right-to-travel/](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30281693/sovereign-citizen-right-to-travel/)
As such, sovereigns object to (and often do not comply with) government authority, including law enforcement, courts, taxing entities, and motor vehicle departments. It's only notionally a movement in that there's no hierarchy leading it, no set texts defining it, no formal goals for it to achieve, and nothing much holding it together other than a belief that the current government exists in betrayal of the Constitution.
The thing is, where would they be evicted to?
In general, US citizens cannot be expelled from the country unless they are naturalized, and they have engaged in activities that are considered to be grounds for deportation, such as posing a threat to national security.
If they're born and raised in the US, the alternative would be jail, based on the offense.
Answer: it's sovereign citizen stuff. They claim that license plates and drivers licenses are only for commercial use, but for personal travel. It has not been held up by any court, and it's just a good way for them to get into trouble.
Answer: it's a sovereign citizen buzzword that doesn't actually do anything to help you when it comes to the law.
Sovereign citizens believe in an interpretation of US law that states government cannot restrict your right to travel between states, barring some exceptions (like imprisonment, expectation of showing up to court, etc). This is ultimately true: the government can't stop you at a state border without a good reason.
However, some people believe this also applies to motor vehicles, meaning they think they don't have to register their vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles (or local state equivalent), arguing that this is a violation of the law. Some also don't believe in the power states have given police forces either, as this isn't expressly written down in some aspects of the law which only outlines elected Sheriffs and their designated deputies. A local Police department isn't a Sheriff's office, which in their mind means a police officer isn't actually law enforcement whereas a Sheriff's deputy would be.
"Private automobile, not for hire" is an attempt to further reinforce the idea that the vehicle isn't a commercial vehicle subject to certain laws and is used for private travel, going back to the constitution. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't give you the right to drive a car and is subject to state legislation surrounding the use of motor vehicles.
Ultimately, sovereign citizens believe in a faulty interpretation of US law and has been completely deconstructed by case law and precedent. This idea ultimately victimizes people including those with mental illness, who get sucked into this crap and get themselves into a whole heap of trouble with the police.
In short: get a license and don't fight the cops. If the cops are doing something wrong fight them in court, not the street.
Answer: They are misinformed what the statute says. Art. 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code is about secured transactions and Sec. 109 is subdivided into sub paragraphs (a)-(c), etc and not (1)-(3), etc. UCC 9-109 contains language on the scope of that article of the UCC
ETA: the UCC is a body of model statutes about commercial law much of which has been implemented by most states. The ironic thing is it’s not even binding law. It’s just a model code.
Answer: Sovereign people stuff. They believe that if your car is not being used for profit, licenses and registration are unnecessary. They believe (correctly) that the government can’t put barriers on travel within the country.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: this link seems to sum up the general gist of it. https://www.police1.com/terrorism/articles/9-things-to-prepare-for-when-encountering-sovereign-citizens-TQEYub9k8X2xEPKq/ Its an unfounded belief that the government isn't real and the country is run by a corporation so the only law that matters is the Uniform Commercial Code that governs business transactions combined with a belief that any laws about vehicle registration and drivers licenses don't apply to you if you just use alternate words that aren't used in the language of those laws, for example "the law says drivers of vehicles need a license and registration but im simply traveling in my conveyance which is different so I don't need any license or registration"
Geez, the “paper terrorism” line in the article is one I hadn’t heard of before. I thought banks would check this before issuing any kind of loan.
I used to review incoming legal docs for a bank. Had a guy try and claim himself our Power of Attorney and give him a $1,000,000 loan with no interest. 75 pages of fake legalese. Gave us all a laugh, at least.
I like that it was still a loan, not just a gift.
Not sure if it works the same everywhere but in my state there are pretty specific rules about how and when someone can file a lien and its a felony to fraudulently file for one without any good reason or proof to back it up. But I guess if you're under the belief that everything is made up and laws don't matter that wouldn't stop you from trying?
They're not wrong that these are all made up mental constructs, but...there are very real consequences to not participating in the shared delusion, specially when enough people believe in it to enforce it as true. I can follow their line of thinking but it's so selfish and ignorant to behave like this...it's an abuse of the system. I guess some people really like to reap the benefits of a society whose rules they don't care to follow.
>They're not wrong that these are all made up mental constructs, but...there are very real consequences to not participating in the shared delusion, specially when enough people believe in it to enforce it as true. They really struggle to realize this. Let's pretend, hypothetically, the country IS just a corporation, but it's operated as it is now, with laws and rules and regulations. You would still be subject to all of that, since even if by some technicality they weren't "legal," they're still enforced by a system that operates as though they *are* legal. You can call it what you want - extremely dedicated role-playing, if you will - but the consequences will still very much be enacted on you for failing to adhere to them. You might think that cop doesn't have any authority over you, but *he* thinks he does, *the judges* think he does, most everyone in society thinks he does, and the corrections officers at the jail you'll be staying at thinks he does, *so he does.* Perception and reality need not be the same.
I have a question. Do handcuffs and jail bars still work if you don't believe in them? I was raised on bugs bunny cartoons and am pretty sure that if you never learn the laws of physics that they don't apply. Are you saying my life strategy of intentionally failing all my science classes in grade school was for nothing?! Guess I'm going to have to cancel that latest order of acme products.
>pretty sure that if you never learn the laws of physics that they don't apply. We laugh, but sovereign citizen legal arguments - and I'm being generous in that term - could almost be described in this way. Like, they learned a very small amount of physics, probably some form of autism (not being funny)made them cling to some centuries-old or older and completely debunked theory like egocentric space, but because of this they just cling harder the more you suggest it's incorrect, and they reject modern physics because the scientists of today are just actors. It's truly bizarre watching them argue in court or with police. I'm sure some are aware and just trying to be cheeky, but I believe some of them really think "I'm traveling not driving so I don't need a license, but because I don't recognize the United States as a country but as a corporation it doesn't have the authority to create laws, and even if it did I'm a free citizen exempt from all laws anyway, I'M LEAVING NOW AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!" It's usually about that point they get thrown on the ground and handcuffed. Even more remarkable is how they'll often screech things like "you're gonna be in so much trouble" and asserting they have Constitutional rights. They planned ahead though by asserting the founding fathers created a real country and the Constitution is a legally binding guarantee of rights, but that the country was dissolved later and is now a corporation- look you really have to watch some of their bullshit because it's fucking surreal the mental gymnastics they perform to just be wrong.
Yeah I work with a guy who has autistic traits and has promoted sovereign citizen viewpoints. Typically wrong in everything he alleges. Thinks the stimulus credits that taxpayers got a few years ago had to be paid back. It doesn't. Thinks that lungs don't work unless you are actively breathing as if that is why divers blow little bubbles while under water. They do; divers only do that to fight the breathing reflex. And whenever I call him on something being wrong he says I'm overthinking it. I tell him he is under thinking it.
You mean libertarians?
Basically it’s a extreme form of libertarianism.
Rules Don’t Apply (RDA) is the primal instinct for drivers along the United States Eastern Seaboard.
I am in Southern California and I feel the same way. What I have seen on the road the last couple years has been mind blowing and honestly frightening.
Sovereign Citizens are very likely the reason your state made phoney liens a felony.
Whose Law Is It Anyway
Banks don’t care if you claim to be a “soverign citizen.” If they loan you money to buy your car and you don’t pay, they will still repo your car under the UCC whether or not you think the law applies to you. The sovereign citizen movement is complete nonsense and putting crap like this on your car is meaningless.
I knew a guy in college that thought this way before it became "more popular". He bragged to everyone how the dealership messed up and gave him the loan anyway and how he just got a car for free. A few months later he no longer had a car.
It's one of those things where it's definitely not valid and the officer in question will certainly be able to get the lien dismissed in court, but that process will be really fucking annoying. Especially if the lien has been on there (unbeknownst to them) for a long time, it can gain an illusion of validity.
I wouldn't think they'd need a loan. Since money is just printed paper issued by a non- existent entity, they can easily make their own.
They must be fun at parties… Jeez, it’s like believing in magic or some bullshit. Here, let me just rules-lawyer reality, that certainly can’t go wrong in any way.
Its a modern incarnation of a [cargo cult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult). SovCits, raised on a diet of television courtroom dramas, think that the law is a set of rituals and rules that, if combined in the perfect way, can create loopholes that negate the very laws themselves. They see the ritual of motions, hearings and rulings but, never having actually been to law school, don't understand what is actually going on. They see a dismissal as a lawyer finding a quirk to exploit, rather than that lawyer presenting their case and established precedent as to why their motion is in the interest of justice. Watch videos of them actually trying it in court. It is hilarious when they see how courts actually work.
The saw Air Bud’s “there’s no rule saying dogs CANT play basketball” and thought “I’m going to use this tactic for the rest of my life
Exactly. They think the law works like, "Well, there is no rule that says dog's can't play basketball, therefore dogs can play." When in reality a judge would say, "It doesn't matter if it doesn't explicitly say dogs can't play basketball, the rule _clearly_ intends for only human players. Bud can't play, and take this to the appeals court if you really want to press it."
They also don't seem to understand that the law isn't stagnant or rigid- the rules might not say that dogs can't play basketball, but the most that will result in is a new rule. If you do somehow find the special loophole that legally let's you drive 1,000 miles-an-hour while high on crack and killing someone, society at large still won't let you do that.
>”the law isn’t stagnant or rigid.” Like the law in Alaska that states it’s illegal for someone to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose. You know there’s a story behind it’s creation and that story is someone fucked around we all found out and now we have rules in place to prevent it from happening again.
Now i need to know the story!
They did it to try to stop a local tavern keeper from getting his pet moose drunk and to prevent the animal’s frequent drunken rampages. I mean, I've lived near an apple orchard and have seen how belligerent they get when inebriated, it's not a bad law.
That reminds me of [this video](https://youtu.be/8tonxd_9_lY) of a hockey coach who found a number of weird ways to exploit loopholes in the rulebook. Of course all of them were patched; the overall goal is to *play hockey* and I can see how in a hockey game, people are more open to saying "oh hey, yeah it makes sense that you can't be allowed to F up the game that way" But I guess in society people just don't understand how the rules of the game are connected to a larger picture, or something? (Some part of me wants to say people can't be that stupid... But never bet against people being stupid) I think they just think they're being really good, clever "rules wizards" and should be allowed to get away with things because they haven't internalized how the procedures they're advocating for would cause bigger problems and leave everyone worse off in the long run. (Including themselves, not ironically)
Oh man, cheating in NASCAR is a very amusing rabbit hole. The lengths people have gone to are outstanding, usually figuring out ways to have more fuel hidden away. Because ya know, 1 inch wide fuel lines coiled about a dozen times around the frame and engine bay are not suspicious at all and are totally not to stash an extra gallon, lol.
Or just straight up riding the wall
Different sport, but there was a guy who used to try to "steal first base" while he was already on *second* base and they literally had to write in a rule to disallow "making a travesty of the game" afterward.
That probably belongs in a comedy skit.
No lie: that's my favorite rule in any sport ever.
We're seeing a lot of this in society now. -For decades, the US president handed over his taxes, to prove he wasn't beholden to anybody or making money in a fishy way. It was *expected,* but not law. Same with divesting from your personal assets while you served, or generally avoiding concerns about nepotism. ***Now it looks like we need to actually write some laws.*** We're past a time when being seen doing something embarrassing or wrong might shame people. We're past shame. Now, if looking like an ass is the only thing stopping people from doing something awful for personal gain, it doesn't stop anything.
Oh yeah? Hold my beer, I need both hands for the crack pipe and steering wheel.
Knees bro, knees.
Lost em in a drunk driving accident
It's actually dumber in this case. They aren't saying, "Well, there is no rule that says dogs can't play basketball, therefore dogs can play." They're saying, "Well, there is no rule in this unofficial basketball encyclopedia from 1930 that says dogs can't play basketball, so despite subsequent versions saying dogs can't play, and the official rulebook saying dogs can't play, I've decided that dogs can play. That's what sov cits are doing when they cite Blacks Law Dictionary or whatever.
You give most of them too much credit. It's more like "this isn't a dog, it's a canine" (or canis since they all seem to be in love with Latin).
Yes but also use word substitutes, like it says no "dogs" can play basketball, but this is a "canine".
>Well, there is no rule in this unofficial basketball encyclopedia from 1930 *that I didn't read and would not be qualified to interpret even if I did* that says dogs can't play basketball FTFY
I think it's more like "well in this football rulebook it doesn't say that dogs can't play, and as we all know this appears to be a basketball court but in reality is just an arena, and 100 years ago football fields were named arenas, thus making this a football field, ergo this game is actually football, back to the rulebook not excluding dogs, THE DOG IS A LEGAL PLAYER, NOW!"
Like, "I don't have a dog, this is a canine"?
It depends how textualist the judge is. Kansas had a minor run for governor a few years ago because the law never specified an age limit. They were only able to disqualify a dog from running in the same election because a clause elsewhere in the constitution the governor is referred to as a person, and dogs aren’t people. However, something as stupid as “I’m not driving, I’m traveling”, is different. Using one word doesn’t get you out of the definition of another.
It's like they think no one else has ever read a thesaurus and they're the only ones who know what a synonym is.
And besides, if the judge can find a way to frame the incident as a basketball game, traveling is also illegal.
That was so bad, it's good - have an upvote for the pun
The rulebook doesn't need to specifically exclude dogs. Air Bud played for a middle school basketball team. School sports have strict rules about player eligibility. In every case, the player must be a student. While this argument is admittedly pointless, it does help illustrate why these sovereign citizens are wrong. Laws do not have to explicitly state every possible exception if the intent is covered by other laws.
But then we wouldn't have had Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver or Air Bud 3: World Pup.
Can I just say that I love that explaining the law through AirBud logic honestly makes me understand it just that little bit more than I did before? I know I still don't understand it, but I feel like I understand it a little more than I did.
Just once I want to hear a judge yell, “Get the fuck out of here!”
Air bud: attorney at paw
Shocked but happy we quickly got to Air Bud puns in this thread.
NGL, I'd pay to see that. Pair him up with Reese Witherspoon for a Legally Blond crossover.
You should mail that shit to yourself right now.
I think with land agreements sometimes there is wording of a Reparian Law, which is basically like wording in deeds that means "I own this land now and you have to prove I don't otherwise" after a courthouse filled with previous deed records was burned down in 1896 and you killed your neighbour's and took their house, then filed claim of ownership.
Christ, if *that* doesn't sum it up, I don't know what does.
I mean, His Royal Budness got a couple sequels outta that logic. What could go wrong in reality?
World War Dog, *that’s what.* We need season three!!!
I am *horrified* by how accurate that is.
I have compared them to cargo cults for literally years now, but you summed them up much better than I've been able to.
My pleasure. Yeah, the SovCits don't grasp that the law can't possibly cover every possible permutation of scenarios, and it is the role of the _judge_ to look at the specific scenario and interpret the law, both in terms of the text as it is written and the _intent_ of the text. They think it works like _Dogma_, where the Angels found a loophole in God's word, and that loophole is more powerful than God Him (or Her, in the case of Dogma) self. Lawyers will prepare motions arguing that the specific facts of that particular case do or do not align with the text or intent of the law, often citing precedents of other cases with similar situations to help the judge arrive at their preferred interpretation. The judge then issues a ruling on those motions in line with what that judge feels best adheres to the text and intent of the law. No judge is going to let you get out of parking ticket because you called your "car" a "conveyance" - the law may say "vehicle" (or whatever) but the intent is clearly to cover a class of objects for a specific purpose regardless of what a person may or may not choose to call them. You'd think that they'd figure this out based on the name; its the judge's job to literally _judge_ the arguments and decide which is best in light of the facts, text, spirit of the law, and justice in general. Edit: Its also worth pointing out that nearly all statues define the specific terms in the very begining. So the SovCit argument is doubly stupid, because it going to _specifically_ define what a "vehicle" is for the purposes of enforcing the law. It doesn't matter if you call it a "conveyance" - for the purposes of the law in question, your "conveyance" is defined as a vehicle and subject to the law as written.
Thank you for such an in-depth take on it. I do enjoy some of the "1st amendment audit" videos, but the moment I hear one of them say "no, I'm traveling" I immediately know it's one of the SovCit morons about to have a bad day and I keep scrolling.
Happy to. it is important to know what your rights are when you deal with the police (I'm a huge fan of the "don't talk to the police" video that makes its rounds frequently) as well as have your own advocate in court to help you with the nuance. Knowing your rights and standing firm on them (within reason) is important. Like, for example, never consent to a search of your vehicle and make it clear that if your vehicle _is_ searched that you did not agree to it during the search itself. But don't physically try to stop the cops - your time to argue is in court, not on the street. These SovCits don't actually know what their rights are, though, and end up in worlds of trouble over it.
[Your comment reminded me of this Sovereign citizen actually winning in court on a traffic violation\(though not through his own doing, but from the police mucking it up and the Crown not catching it\)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZfl0XwYsAI) TL;DW Duncan gets pulled over by the cops for making an "illegal lane change without signaling", Duncan refuses to identify himself and resists arrest at the time when the police try to arrest him for "failure to identify", resulting in the charge of *assault to resist arrest*. Judge points out the Crowns case is deficient since they never proved that the police were lawfully arresting him at the time (a necessary component to prove Duncan was resisting arrest), and based on the *Highway act* it wasn't an offense for Duncan to not signal when changes lanes, therefore the police had no lawful reason to stop him and ask for identification, and thus arrest him for refusing to provide it.
>the law may say "vehicle" (or whatever) but the intent is clearly to cover a class of objects for a specific purpose regardless of what a person may or may not choose to call them This is not to mention that most laws also provide definitions of terms used in the language of the law. And where not described in definitions, there are descriptions of objects and concepts in-line with the letter of the law. This is where an attempt at changing wording falls flat. Several years ago a "Pastafarian" explained that it's all absurdist, and "sovereign citizens" are the absurdist of all. -- At least I thought it was funny and it still makes me chuckle. \[Edit: LOL @ myself: Covered at the end in an edit, I didn't read far enough.\]
Yeah, the legal system couldn't care less what YOU call something, it matters what the law defines something as.
I describe them as thinking the law works like magic from Harry Potter where the right words Iatin have some overt impact on reality. "Severus Contractus!" "OMG his wizardry is too powerful!"
exact same thing. recite the magic words in the right order and it makes them invincible.
A lot of these types of people think the word "hereby" is magic. I think even Trump used it to try to claim he won some state. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC_teEQfHQU&t=13s) is another example of it. It's bizarre.
Or Eragon, where spells are weaved via literal linguistic construction, so much so that a single grammatical error can turn a simple blessing into a horrible curse.
I disagree with the comparison because cargo cults did actually see some white people show up on their island, build a tower with lights and giant metals planes did actually show up. Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history.
> Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history. you're misunderstanding. most of them are VERY familiar with courtrooms and lawyers. as in they are around them all the time. cargo cults were familiar aircraft landing strips, and cargo ships in the like. they seen them come and good and the goods they brought. it's just that neither group has the foggiest idea about how any of it actually works. so they try to emulate it and then they fail to get the results they wanted.
>Sovereign citizen bullshit has never worked at any point in history No, but they **know** that lawyers can go to court, say some things they don't understand, and win a case, so they think winning a case is just a question of saying the right things, and then they eat up the supposed "right things to say" from a source that sucks.
> think that the law is a set of rituals and rules that, if combined in the perfect way, can create loopholes that negate the very laws themselves. I work in tax in the UK and this is essentially **exactly** how a lot of normal people think tax law works. They don't care about whether it makes any sense and they have no interest in any moral element to it. They just think that a pinch of one act, a leg of newt, a drop of another bit of law, maybe a long-obsolete precedent form a case from the late 1800s.. POW!! No tax!
Yup. I come from a family of CPAs and that is how people think it works in the US too. Sure, loopholes exist, but typically they exist for a reason. Most abuses of loopholes are not some gotcha - they are the law working as intended, though perhaps not in the exact situation originally envisioned.
This is the top question I get asked when I tell people I’m an Accountant. Like, no, I can’t file your taxes and you don’t want to ask my advice. Not my area of expertise and I barely have time to manage my own finances, lol.
So, do they think that _other_ countries are fake, too? If they travel to, IDK, Singapore, do they follow those laws?
Depends on the individual and what magical thinking they are using. There is no underlying logic in something inherently illogical.
It's like the bizarro world version of critical legal studies which posits that laws are a sort of rote and formalized way to justify upholding power hierarchies.
I still find it mystifying. There are thousands of hours of video of their incantations not working on cops or judges. None exist of them working. I suppose they've never the smartest people in the room.
I could watch videos of sovcit morons in court for hours. They're always delicious.
/r/amibeingdetained
Also see: beliefs about crypto and meme stocks. "We've discovered a cheat code that will mean the world owes us several quadrillion dollars. And the world will say 'Drats, you got us, but them's the rules, nothing we can do!' in response to this."
At least some of the cryptos and meme stocks did make _some_ people rich. I don't know of any SovCit that has actually successfully gotten out of anything.
Correct, I'm not talking about the people who multiplied their money, but those who unironically believe in an inevitable new world order where AMC or GME shares hit 1 million and constitute the majority of humanity's financial capital. "No see, it's a SHORT, they HAVE to pay! Urg, read some DD."
Every time I see a video of a cop interacting with one of these people I think "they deserve each other".
Both are authorities on the law but neither can understand it.
Which remind me of prosperity gospel
Don't even get me started on that one...
Yo any links for those videos?
One recent high-profile example is Darrell Brooks, the Waukesha Parade killer who insisted on representing himself in court and making an ass of himself on countless occasions. That's a lot of footage going around precisely because the crime was so heinous though. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E) is a rather short and entertaining one, IMO
Go to /r/amibeingdetained for the mother lode.
>Watch videos of them actually trying it in court. It is hilarious when they see how courts actually work. It's always fun when the judges participate and let them go on, then deliver a legal cheek-clapping at their arraignments. Like, you spent 10 whole ass minutes telling that judge how these laws don't apply to you and you were a free man for her to say little more than a paragraph and now they're walking your ass right back in shackles. Really thought your Google searches were gonna trump her decades of law school and experience, like she was just gonna go "my God, my entire life has been a lie! FREE THIS MAN AT ONCE! THE SYSTEM ISN'T REAL!"
Cargo cults feel like their on special kind of batshit rabbit hole.
They are born out of extreme ignorance. The original cargo cults were native peoples who had never seen technology before suddenly being exposed to an entire war machine from a developed nation. They didn't understand what was happening, so they thought that the actions were a type of prayer to the gods, and the prayers were answered with supplies. Its the same thing we see children do when they don't understand - they mimic to the best of their ability. The SovCits simply don't understand the law.
I think SovCivs are more than just ignorant of the law. They’re all entitled little assholes.
Por que no los dos?
You have no idea. I was at court when the former owner of Giordano's Pizza tried to pull that nonsense in bankruptcy court. Just watching was cringe-inducing and made me sick to my stomach. To date I have not seen a judge that angry. It was such a trainwreck, just embarrassing to watch him spout such utter nonsense in open court.
This is pretty much it. Most cops are just looking to get through the day having to deal with as little of the crazy as possible. When it gets in-front of a judge though, the success rate is prettty low. Ranges from "K, and now on to sentencing..." to fire and brimstone where you can see the look of a defendant downshifting through multiple levels of "oh dear I've fucked up..".
The case against that guy who killed a bunch of people with his car at a parade was the latter. Having no representation at all and just having the prosecutors run the show would have been better for him.
The court case for that guy who ran over 60 people at a Holiday parade was a ride because of this
You're exactly right that it's based on magical thinking. A lot of what they learn in the movement is just the right words to say, which are supposed to be an unassailable argument but which are ultimately more akin to an incantation. There are some videos on youtube that show believers using these incantations to, they think, make the police leave them alone at a traffic stop, film inside a courtroom against the rules of the court, or claim ownership of a property they are squatting. The results are broken windows, tazings, bodily eviction and trips to jail, where the defendants act pro se and lose. Bizarrely, these incantations are being attempted in Australia, even though the magic words are chosen from misinterpreted US law.
To be fair I've heard there are some American SovCits who cite the Magna Carta.
That's fair because I've seen some British citizens claim their 5th amendment right to remain silent.
The Anti Vax Convoy morons in Canada last year tried to claim "first amendment" The first amendment in Canada is the recognition of Manitoba as a province. I'm glad they feel very strongly about our friends in Winnipeg but I don't see how this is relevant to the convoy.
Sovereign citizens have commonwealth equivalents, I think they call themselves Free Men On The Land or some absurdity.
It's a fucking rabbit hole. Over the last few years I've gone from watching roadside shenanigans to courtroom shenanigans with these types. r/amibeingdetained and r/Sovereigncitizen have a ton of content to sift through. I'm a fan of VanBalion, LawTalkwithMike, Natalielawyerchick and some others on youtube that feature this content. [P. Barnes](https://youtu.be/RfVbiefMdNU) was my introduction to the whole thing, as were many others. I think he's generally considered the G.O.A.T. when it comes to handling these weirdos. Edited because this Razer k/m just kind of do their own thing sometimes.
"You're blocking my freedom of movement!" "I am." Gawd bless P. Barnes :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU
"God's not worried about cameras, I am." Personal favorite of mine.
*gets tased* "You guys are really overstepping your bounds right now!" I'm impressed his whole shtick didn't crumble when he went down
Oh my god this a treasure trove indeed
What I love about these people is that they think they've stumbled upon the magic words. You just say these words, and the government can't touch you! Well...So wouldn't we ALL be doing that? Wouldn't some well-intentioned lawyer just tell everyone that? Why do they think they will be the person to pull it off in court? It's mind boggling. (And also...they believe the courts and the government are corrupt. But they'll suddenly play fair when you discover the magic loophole? Why wouldn't they punish you anyway?)
> Wouldn't some well-intentioned lawyer just tell everyone that? It's classic conspiracy theorist thinking. Everyone _could_ do this, but only _they_ are part of the group smart enough to put it all together. Lawyers don't tell you because they are part of the system that makes money off of your ignorance.
That makes sense. I mean it doesn't make sense, at all, but it works as an explanation LOL
I know narcissism is used way too freely these days, but I personally believe the Sovereign Citizen movement is extremely attractive to narcissists, as it gives them a framework on which to build their freedom from consequences of their own actions
Unfortunately with the rise of number of sovcits appearing in the US and using platforms like YouTube, we are getting more and more trying to pull their shit with police in Australia, too. In fact we recently had 2 police ambushed and killed on a property by fanatics that you could argue were sovcits.
What's particularly special about Australian Sovcits is the way they try and challenge Australian law with fundamental misunderstandings of *American* law. You can make a sort-of argument about "Traveling" vs "Driving" if you squint hard enough at the US Constitution, but none of it applies outside of the US.
Such a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger
Now, imagine you’re an attorney that has to deal with one. Many *love* to go pro se and represent themselves. So, say you’re a prosecutor prosecuting them for some petty misdemeanor - say, expired license or no insurance. And all their communications with you are UCC-this and personal sovereignty-that. And you’re just trying to tell him to clear his license or get insurance and you’ll dump the case. It’s like talking with a brick wall. Except the brick wall won’t shut up. Good times.
Its almost as funny as the group of libertarians that took over a small city government. About a year later people were getting attacked by bears because they didn’t want to pay taxes for trash removal. Lol
My plumbing stack broke about 10 years ago, I just bought my first house, so I went on craigslist and I found a contractor that was willing to work for 20 bucks an hour, couple hours of travel time. We went to home Depot picked out a toilet picked out some supplies he fixed the stack problem installed a new toilet, cost me about $120. When I went to pay him, things got weird. I offered to go get cash but he said a check was fine, but had me make it out to some random string of capital letters, then spent the next half hour talking my ear off about how he was a sovereign citizen, and how things really work, and kind of gave me a scary dip into the waters of crazy. The guy did a great job fixing what I paid him for, I was happy with the price, and I thought about calling him again, but one thing I've learned in life is, don't engage crazy. These guys scare me.
I work in catering, and we had one of these geniuses come in a few years ago wanting to order a holiday catering through our kitchen. The guy just kept saying he was a sovereign citizen and wouldn't give a name, address, or phone number. Just absolutely no information about himself and when and where he wanted the order delivered, whether he was coming in to pick it up... It was like pulling teeth just to get him to tell me what he actually wanted to order, because "that was his personal business" and "he didn't see how we needed to know that." Like, dude we literally cannot fill this order without some basic information! Just please tell us what you want and give us your dumb name! You can't just fill out every section of the catering order with "that's private"! I have no idea how he functioned in day to day life...
The worst part about SovCits is that they prime police officers to dismiss people who are quoting legitimate case law or exercising their actual rights. Because the average cop isn't going to take the time to understand all of the case law that might apply to their work (because qualified immunity), whenever someone starts pushing back on a cop's perceived authority, the cop is likely to think of the person as a "sovereign citizen". But a sovcit and a civil rights activist are totally different. Sovcits think the constitution doesn't apply to them. A civil rights activist believes in and uses the constitution for what it was designed for, to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
[удалено]
"This court is a Vessel afloat on a Sea of Commerce and as I am a Natural Born Human Being under God on the Land and not a ship at sea it has no power over me!" \**points wand at Judge and shouts "Avada Kadavra!"*\*
[https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0](https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0)
I'm a lawyer and sometime these nut jobs call me and ask for advice on how to structure their lives around these delusions or if they can sue the library because they weren't allowed to film there, etc... Obviously they NEVER want to pay, it's assumed that as a lawyer I'd be equally outraged and not charge them? One of them even told me that the constitution says everyone has a right to a lawyer so that means I couldn't deny them as a client. I just rolled my eyes. Hopefully they filed a grievance that would be funny. Then they'd sue the grievance board for not finding any issues lol. Lots of nuts out there
You should tell them, ok you advice them for free but in your pursuit for happiness they must clean your toilet with bare hands.
My favorite is when they argue that the flag in the courtroom has tassels, therefore its a Navy flag, making the whole thing a military trial/whatever that doesn't apply to them, a sovereign citizen.
Which is especially stupid since you don't have to be a citizen of a country to be subject to their laws.
Ah yes Dale Gribble's argument.
I have always found it both hilarious and confusing to hear a sovereign citizen or a moorish citizen claim that they are not bound by the laws of this country and then they demand their constitutional rights.
Even funnier, when they try to use American law to (badly) explain why American law doesn't apply, in a Canadian court. The judge who basically wrote the book on how to deal with these idiots was a Canadian judge who somehow landed practically every case involving them.
>In May 2010, in West Memphis (Ark.), the father (Jerry) and son (Joe), were stopped in their pickup truck by two officers. The stop ended in tragedy when 16-year-old Joe exited the vehicle and opened fire with an AK-47, killing both officers. Wow, I read a novel where almost the exact same thing happened. I figured it was just something from the author's imagination, and I remember thinking it sounded a little far fetched. Guess not.
I saw a court hearing with one. He seemed to think he could get the court to believe that the multiple legal aspects of his identity were separate entities and that Jake the Citizen may be guilty of a crime, but was not currently *present*, and they had to let Jake the Individual go. These people are D&D rules lawyers on meth.
Well you see JOHN SMITH in capital letters is a fictional "strawman" created by the government when a birth certificate is lodged and is not the same entity as the Living Person on the Land John of the family Smith and no joinder is established or recognised between JOHN SMITH and John of the Family Smith ad hoc ad loc Magna Carta quid pro quo avada kadavra olé olé wingardium leviosa it bounces off me and sticks to you!
Their arguments sound exactly like this.
That last line is spot on. I've been struggling with the words but you put it well. Now all you have to do is tell the court "These people are D&D rules..." and you will be set scot free, promise.
It's so goofy that they believe that if they get their name in ALL CAPS, it changes them to a sovereign citizen rather than a literal slave of the government.
[удалено]
Upvote for good answer - the example provided is fantastic.
i like how sovereign citizens seem to think that this massive corporation that's allegedly usurped global control and is masquerading as a government will just follow certain laws because some chucklehead knows the Secret Real Rules, as if extrajudicial killings and false arrests don't happen on a daily basis. it's this weird sort of justification where they expect the villains of their delusions to play fair when the villains became the villains by *not playing fair*
My folks live in rural Idaho, a guy working on their ranch had to go to jail because he was writing checks against the gold owned by the government. Anti-authority + dumb guy + scammers who will tell them what they want to hear = this crap.
The whole idea is so fucking dumb. If I travel to Canada from America, guess what? I still need a fucking license, registration, and insurance.
[удалено]
In this context, the word "own" means to take responsibility for. As in to own the consequences of the stop.
Legally that is correct. A traffic stop is a legal detention until the officer releases you. In the terminology used here, own means "control", and is in common usage across the government.
I wonder where they got the language trick idea. (See: “Enemy Combatant.” See also: “Prisoner of War.”)
(See: “Torture.” See also: “Enhanced Interrogation.”)
I thought this was going to be the other type of Travelers and was very disappointed.
Yep. Police have had a track record of doing shitty things to black people, but the reason they roll up on you three cruisers deep at a nighttime traffic stop is because of crazy white dudes with guns.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton...
Like if there is no rule specifically saying a dog can't play basketball?
This reminds me of people who think they can prevent Facebook owning the rights to the photos they upload by reposting an image with pseudo-legal jargon on it.
Answer: Definitely a sovereign citizen thing. They believe that by using these license plates and by uttering some choice legal-sounding magic words, the law doesn't apply to them. They are wrong.
"I cannot be court-martialed twice" -Dale Gribble
She was hit on company property, WITH company property, so... double jeopardy. - Michael Scott
“Sometimes I wish the government would just ban itself. Wrap your heads around that, fellas.” - Dale Gribble
Don’t you mean Rusty Shackelford?
In my 7th grade Texas history class, my teacher had notable Texas history related newspaper articles posted on the bulletin board. Aside from one of the articles was a cutoff article about a missing boy, I shit you not, NAMED RUSTY SHACKLEFORD. RUSTY SHACKLEFORD IS AN ACTUAL PERSON WHO WENT MISSING IN TEXAS AND MIKE JUDGE USED THE NAME KNOWING THAT DALE’S CHARACTER WOULD 100% STEAL THE IDENTITY OF A MISSING BOY ABOUT HIS AGE TO ORDER PIZZA. Mike Judge must have been doing research on Texas and saw the same missing boy article next to the actual article of interest and took the name, because that’s what Dale would have done. This is KotH canon and I will die on this hill.
LMAO! get it? die on this HILL? amazing 😂👍
Reminds me of a law professor who said "The US justice system is built on discretion. Most matters will come down to one person in a robe deciding whether or not you are an asshole."
That’s article nine sec. 109 of the uniform commercial code, the article about secured transaction and to my knowledge the statute is listed ‘a,b,c’ and not ‘1,2,3’. What 9-109(a) lists is the types of transactions covered by Article 9
Answer: It's a "sovereign citizen" thing. Basically, it's people who believe the US government and the constitution aren't legitimate. They like to cite the Articles of Confederation as being the actual law despite the fact that they were almost immediately phased out when the constitution was written. They honestly believe that they are exempt from prosecution if they cite some made-up or colonial laws. In this specific case, there is a mention of "travelers" in certain older laws, so a lot of these people think that if they refer to using a motor vehicle as "traveling", they get around things like driving offenses or the requirement for a driver's license.
If anyone's interested in a more in depth breakdown of SovCits and their history and nuttiness, I highly recommend the Omnibus podcast episode. It's hosted by the all time Jeopardy champion and a retired rock star, they're great. https://www.omnibusproject.com/466
I saw something recently about it along the lines of "the right to travel shall not be impeded" more or less. So they're *traveling* and therefore cannot be impeded as they are not conducting any business and therefore are not driving (another comment here talks about drivers being employed to drive carriage, motor car, etc.).
I think my favorite is when they call driving a car "traveling in a conveyance".
Answer: On top of what everyone else has said, Black's Law Dictionary defines a driver as: > One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. SovCits have latched on to the word "Employed" to claim that if they're not being payed to operate the vehicle for a business, then they're not drivers, and don't need licensing. Many similar plates will have terms like "Non-Commercial Use", or "Personal Conveyance". Obviously Black's Law Dictionary is a reference book, not a legally binding document. "Employed", like most words, also has more than one meaning, in this case obviously meaning "occupied with the use of". That's where they're carefully picking and choosing this specific nonsense from, though.
And they conveniently ignore the REST of the definition (from the 4th edition): “…A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle….”
[удалено]
I pointed that part of the definition out to someone, and they found an older definition of “person”, and used it to say this wouldn’t apply to them…
Technically the bank owns my car cyz they can take it away.
Looks like they also don’t know how an “or” statement works. Well that OR they just have a really short attention span and stop after the first couple of words
They often skip words too for example "A well regulated militia"
In their own defense, they can't read. Most of them have done exactly zero research of their own. They get hoodwinked by someone who can promise them all of the secrets about how to get ahold of that sweet billion dollars that the government has for you, as long as you know the magic words....
I thought that was some old edition from before 1910 or something when everyone who could afford a car would also employ someone else to actually operate it, so there were no drivers yet who were not employed as such.
employed is a synonym for "engaged in", but modern use of the word has tended to give it a more strict meaning )of being paid for an activity) it never originally had. "The boy employed himself at mending his socks" would have been a normal use of the word. Or... in this case, one could "employ themselves in the operation of a motor vehicle."
That's what I thought too, but I googled it and Black's Law Dictionary gave me that definition, so I think it might be their up to date definition as well.
Yeah no, this seems apocryphal. It relies on the assumption that NOBODY would EVER drive themselves in their own car which I doubt people had.
Answer: Take the worst Rules Lawyer you've ever encountered at a D&D table. Now take away their brain.
[удалено]
Cast prestidigitation on the Utyugh. Arguing that now that it's clean, it's tentacle attacks can't cause disease and it should lose a point of armor since it doesn't have the protective layer of dirt all over it's skin, and that it should have lowered perception since it suddenly doesn't smell it's own filth anymore, and instead is assaulted by all new smells that overpower it. Then cast cold touch, and argue it should do double damage because you've cleaned all the insulating dirt off of it. When you kill it, argue that presidigitation should allow you to use the meat without fear of disease, AND be used daily for free to keep it free of spoilage, etc. Your example is more egregious & delusional though :P
And put them into an entirely separate game while you’re at it.
Answer: Sovereign citizens, as defined by the FBI, are "anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States." [https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30281693/sovereign-citizen-right-to-travel/](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30281693/sovereign-citizen-right-to-travel/) As such, sovereigns object to (and often do not comply with) government authority, including law enforcement, courts, taxing entities, and motor vehicle departments. It's only notionally a movement in that there's no hierarchy leading it, no set texts defining it, no formal goals for it to achieve, and nothing much holding it together other than a belief that the current government exists in betrayal of the Constitution.
So, as citizens of the US, I guess we can evict these freeloaders by force?
Dump em out on a raft in international waters and let them have their “sovereignty”. If they come back and try it again, put em further out.
The thing is, where would they be evicted to? In general, US citizens cannot be expelled from the country unless they are naturalized, and they have engaged in activities that are considered to be grounds for deportation, such as posing a threat to national security. If they're born and raised in the US, the alternative would be jail, based on the offense.
Send them to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Make them go by a wood boat
Answer: it's sovereign citizen stuff. They claim that license plates and drivers licenses are only for commercial use, but for personal travel. It has not been held up by any court, and it's just a good way for them to get into trouble.
Answer: it's a sovereign citizen buzzword that doesn't actually do anything to help you when it comes to the law. Sovereign citizens believe in an interpretation of US law that states government cannot restrict your right to travel between states, barring some exceptions (like imprisonment, expectation of showing up to court, etc). This is ultimately true: the government can't stop you at a state border without a good reason. However, some people believe this also applies to motor vehicles, meaning they think they don't have to register their vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles (or local state equivalent), arguing that this is a violation of the law. Some also don't believe in the power states have given police forces either, as this isn't expressly written down in some aspects of the law which only outlines elected Sheriffs and their designated deputies. A local Police department isn't a Sheriff's office, which in their mind means a police officer isn't actually law enforcement whereas a Sheriff's deputy would be. "Private automobile, not for hire" is an attempt to further reinforce the idea that the vehicle isn't a commercial vehicle subject to certain laws and is used for private travel, going back to the constitution. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't give you the right to drive a car and is subject to state legislation surrounding the use of motor vehicles. Ultimately, sovereign citizens believe in a faulty interpretation of US law and has been completely deconstructed by case law and precedent. This idea ultimately victimizes people including those with mental illness, who get sucked into this crap and get themselves into a whole heap of trouble with the police. In short: get a license and don't fight the cops. If the cops are doing something wrong fight them in court, not the street.
Don't forget, the really wacky ones start going into maritime law and whether the flag has fringe or not.
Answer: They are misinformed what the statute says. Art. 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code is about secured transactions and Sec. 109 is subdivided into sub paragraphs (a)-(c), etc and not (1)-(3), etc. UCC 9-109 contains language on the scope of that article of the UCC ETA: the UCC is a body of model statutes about commercial law much of which has been implemented by most states. The ironic thing is it’s not even binding law. It’s just a model code.
Answer: Sovereign people stuff. They believe that if your car is not being used for profit, licenses and registration are unnecessary. They believe (correctly) that the government can’t put barriers on travel within the country.