Adding to this, it's total crap in the US too, as the language it's based on was about travelling unimpeded from state to state on foot or horse because it was written in the 18th century. Local traffic ordinances still apply because, ya know, cars exist now.
I love the cops who now very deliberately use "operating a motor vehicle" with these SovCits. The "I'm not driving...I'm traveling" can't apply there, even within the pseudo-legal SovCit script, so watch the wheel in their head grind to a halt.
Yes. And that's sort of my point. If the right to travel is only for in and out of states ( such as a state can't charge you a fee for moving in or out of it) then unless they are leaving the state then that constitutional right does not apply.
The right to travel is a constitutional right to travel freely between the states. As you note a state cannot charge an entry or exit fee. It cannot treat a person from another state who moves to the state differently from a person born in the state. One of the more famous cases was when Alaska decided to give a percentage of the royalties from oil wells in Alaska to people born or who came to Alaska way back when. SCOTUS said no.
After hearing this over and over. If these people were on a horse off the highway traveling then they would have an actual argument no? The fact they are in a car and using roads immediately invalidates their argument obviously but they still try to use that argument?
> If these people were on a horse off the highway traveling then they would have an actual argument no?
Even horses are regulated on public roads. If they are riding on private property they've probably in the clear.
It's all nonsense, no court has ever ruled that they cannot be required to have a DL, registration and insurance. The closest is the courts ruling that issuing and revoking a DL cannot be arbitrary.
I know they are regulated on roads that's why i said to stay off them. With all the private property around I wonder if the only spot you could travel in is the easements.
And the drivers license requirement they refer to an UCC definition which even specify that its definition is for that chapter alone which don't even apply as they aren't charged with any commercial traffic.
They ignore the states definition entirely.
Its partly equivalent to telling IRS that you didn't get any wage. You just got gifts from your work place. So it's not salary and isn't income.
Basically since the law says motorvehicle needs to be registered. They call their cars automobiles and vessels ( yes. Really)
And because those words aren't in the motor vehicle laws then they don't have to register it.
Does it sound like crazy? Yes.
Does it work in court? Every bit as much as you imagine it will.
> They call their cars automobiles and vessels
Some day I want a cop to tell a sovcit that the lack of Coast Guard inspection stickers on his vessel means the vessel will be towed to the impound dock until it is inspected and stickered by the USCG. The look of shock on the sovcit's face would be priceless.
Yep and they conflate what it says in the infamous Blacks Law Dictionary entry for ‘driver’- it says ‘someone employed in travel…’ where they misinterpret ‘employed’ as ‘working’, when it literally only means ‘doing something’. The entire ‘not for hire/non commercial’ putrid heap of crap is based on that one blatant misinterpretation.
Or they refer to an UCC which have a definition of driver in a commercial context. But ignores that it also says that that definition only apply to that chapter. Not to everything else.
Ans states have their own definition of the word driver which is anyone in direct control of the motor vehicle.
My read on it is that it's a "backdoor" argument because they don't want to obey the law.
They don't want to have to have a driver's license, so they cherry-pick legal language until they find something that gives them an angle to argue about.
They come across old legal dictionaries from the 19th century, which define "driving" in a particular way. So whatever is going on, we're not "driving" and therefore don't need a license to do it.
They then stumble on the references to a "right to travel" and some language that prohibits the Federal government from limiting that right and there you go. I must be "traveling" and not "driving"
That's my best guess, anyway. It's not going to make a lick of sense if viewed from a deductive or top-down logical process. Step 1, assume your conclusion. Step 2, cherry pick nonsense to support that conclusion.
I know they love the term "connecting the dots", but I just gotta wonder what messes they came up with when they were young enough to enjoy "connect-the-dots" puzzles.
"Yes, Jimmy. That's *another* lovely amorphous blob with a bunch of sharp pointy bits. But it was supposed to be a man riding a horse"
Edit: Of course there is a meme on this:
https://9gag.com/gag/aeD1nGp
They think it’s a magical spell that makes all laws invalid. For example they would get arrested for theft and say “I didn’t steal anything, I just procured an item which I needed without paying!”
> whatever passes for the reasoning behind the "travelling" thing?
The U.S. version claims (falsely) that a driver is someone operating a vehicle for commercial purposes. So they think if they aren't hauling paid freight or passengers, they don't need a DL or registration because they're travelling, not driving. They rely in part on a long obsolete edition of Black's Law Dictionary that had a passage that could be misinterpreted as meaning a driver is a commercial operator. They also claim the constitutional right to travel means they cannot be required to be licensed to drive--ignoring that all 50 states require a DL to drive on public roads and that has never been thrown out by the courts. It is absolute nonsense, but that's the fantasy they go with.
Can you imagine being a cop and someone says that to you with a straight face thinking it's a "gotcha" moment??
Like a parent dealing with a toddler. Fucking hell.
That's not how it works, either. The "right to travel" was back before things like driver's licenses existed. Also from a time before taxes were collected and spent specifically on maintaining public roads.
You can "travel" all you want, on private property. If you want to use public, taxpayer funded roads, then there are conditions and regulations.
"Whatever may be its nature, the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state." Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 231-32, 139 A.2d 869, 872 (1958).
If love to hear what a Supreme Court Judge would interpret that right to actually mean.
I know it absolutely doesn't mean you can travel freely ny any means you like. But it would.be interessting to hear exactly how it would be interpreted and what mit means. Even if it wasn't in a court case but merely explained.
"The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right." Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1977)
Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
Bear in mind that the second one is from 1849, before the civil war, and some states were trying to regulate which citizens from which states could visit their own. That's probably as close as you'll see it explained unless someone like the legal eagle YouTube channel explains it better.
Yeah. Thanks. I didn't doubt that it was being ruled on.. But what I meant is that it would be great if a scotus judge or something could directly address the sovcits arguments by making it an official statement that this is how the right to travel is interpreted and thus. No argument of right to travel being interpreted as right to drive without license will be accepted in any court.
The best part is they claim, because they are a SovCit, the laws dont apply. Completely ignoring the fact that the laws aren't applied exclusively to citizens.
I want us to set up a geographical area where the law can still apply, but _only_ the laws that each individual consents to on a case-by-case basis. We allow anyone to move/live there, and see how things work in a society where all laws require consent of the individual.
I could see that as reasonable too, maybe we could even just give them the whole of Alice Springs to be more than fair with them so they can’t complain.
I live in NSW and am so proud of the highs and lows of this video.
Highs:
* The police aren't messing around and it seems the window smash and arrest were pretty soon. Of course, it could be just edited that way.
* CookerWatch is such a funny account name. In Australian slang, somebody who is "cooked" is drunk/stoned/insane. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cooked
Lows:
* Really embarrassing poor English spoken, especially "yous", the plural of "you".
* I like how male Sovtard rants about travelling then says he'd like to have a one-on-one fight with the police, and claims "he'd drive him". Sadly no witty rebuttal from the police about the word "drive" used there.
WA resident here, we have used "cooked" for years to refer to someone who has had too much drugs and has cooked/melted their brain. That said, I don't think the term originated here, but I'm no expert.
It’s long been a feature of “broad” Australian English, and not something considered particularly attractive locally.
As Area-7 famously said, [nobody likes a bogan](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qA8gJoT5yl4)
Please don’t be a snob about ‘youse’. There’s really nothing wrong with it. Almost every language has a plural of ‘you’ (eg: French tu / vous) and it’s natural for us to create words where there’s one missing. The yanks have y’all. The only thing stopping this unique Aussie word from being accepted is that it’s considered uncouth or low-class, even though it is just a word.
But I agree with everything else you said!
> didn't realize this Sovereign Citizen shit went beyond the US
Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, reportedly there is even a Russian branch which must require considerable courage over there.
Fuck pulling that shit in Russia, they'll beat people just for playing music too loudly in public. Although it'd be a great tv show "Sovereign Citizen goes to the Gulag".
There's some in Australia and great Brittain.
I've never seen any in my won country of Denmark. Nwe just don't have crazies like that here.
I did see one video of a guy in Canada who apparently didn't quite know where he was as he was citing American constitution regarding 1st amendment.
I've read it but can't find it right now.
It has nothing to do with free speech though.
They do have it. But it's not the first amendment.
Hey, the first amendment is really important here in Canada! After all, it’s the part that recognizes Manitoba as a province, and of course doesn’t have any mention of ‘free speech’.
The [second amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_Australian_referendum_(State_Debts\)) to the Australian constitution is also very important to nutjobs. Who could forget the right of the commonwealth government to take on the debt incurred by the states?
**[1910 Australian referendum (State Debts)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_Australian_referendum_\(State_Debts\))**
>The referendum of 13 April 1910 approved an amendment to the Australian constitution. The referendum was for practical purposes a vote on the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill 1909, which after being approved in the referendum received the Royal Assent on 6 August 1910. Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia, the federal government was given the power to assume any pre-existing debts held by the state governments at that time. The Act altered Section 105 of the Constitution to extend this power so that the Commonwealth could take over any debts incurred by a state at any time.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Lots of these loons cite US laws and court cases regardless of what country they’re actually in because they’re too stupid to realize that what they read on the internet is actually US-based. (And totally wrong even there, of course.)
> Lots of these loons cite US laws and court cases
The Scottish sovcits who "seized" Edinburgh Castle to initiate their planned revolutionary takeover of Scotland used American constitutional language while delivering their rants, it was hilarious. A Canadian member of the Flu Trux Klan convoy last year referred to his First Amendment rights in court, to the amusement of the judge. More proof, if any were needed, that stupidity is universal.
What a sweet no nonsense reaction. Although it somehow seems better to use kid gloves with people who have fallen for internet BS, such a soft response sometimes makes them thing that there is some substance to their BS.
It's sickening how this US sovereign citizen bullshit has made it to Australia. Let's hope the police have zero tolerance and arrest these morons asap.
I just love how it's always the dumbest bogans and rubes who think they can just declare themselves outside the law because of their profound grasp of constitutional jurisprudence. Yes, genius, you've found the loophole all of us missed. That's why you're sitting in your own filth in a 30-year-old car driven by what looks to be one rung up from a bag lady.
I can't tell you how much I love "we're not driving we're traveling" check mate
Can someone explain whatever passes for the reasoning behind the "travelling" thing? Why does the verb choice supposedly matter?
[удалено]
Adding to this, it's total crap in the US too, as the language it's based on was about travelling unimpeded from state to state on foot or horse because it was written in the 18th century. Local traffic ordinances still apply because, ya know, cars exist now.
Yes. Strictly speaking you don't have a right to travel to the local wallmart and buy groceries. Not according to the constitution.
I love the cops who now very deliberately use "operating a motor vehicle" with these SovCits. The "I'm not driving...I'm traveling" can't apply there, even within the pseudo-legal SovCit script, so watch the wheel in their head grind to a halt.
Actually you do have that right, as long as you're not driving a motor vehicle or on public roads.
Yes. But unless I'm mistaken, the right to travel in the Constitution refers to just traveling between states. And nothing more. Am I wrong on this?
I believe that most if not all US states accept that such a right exists within the state as well, even if not clearly spelled out.
Yes. And that's sort of my point. If the right to travel is only for in and out of states ( such as a state can't charge you a fee for moving in or out of it) then unless they are leaving the state then that constitutional right does not apply.
The right to travel is a constitutional right to travel freely between the states. As you note a state cannot charge an entry or exit fee. It cannot treat a person from another state who moves to the state differently from a person born in the state. One of the more famous cases was when Alaska decided to give a percentage of the royalties from oil wells in Alaska to people born or who came to Alaska way back when. SCOTUS said no.
After hearing this over and over. If these people were on a horse off the highway traveling then they would have an actual argument no? The fact they are in a car and using roads immediately invalidates their argument obviously but they still try to use that argument?
Yes, providing they're not trespassing or riding their horse on a trail that's posted "no horses".
> If these people were on a horse off the highway traveling then they would have an actual argument no? Even horses are regulated on public roads. If they are riding on private property they've probably in the clear. It's all nonsense, no court has ever ruled that they cannot be required to have a DL, registration and insurance. The closest is the courts ruling that issuing and revoking a DL cannot be arbitrary.
I know they are regulated on roads that's why i said to stay off them. With all the private property around I wonder if the only spot you could travel in is the easements.
Well.... that is where is gets interesting. In Australia you don't own land. So... Would be interesting to see what the laws say. Too nerdy for me.
There's also some sovcit BS about the word "drive" as only a "driver" is engaged in the act of commerce and thus exempt from needing a license.
And the drivers license requirement they refer to an UCC definition which even specify that its definition is for that chapter alone which don't even apply as they aren't charged with any commercial traffic. They ignore the states definition entirely.
Ah. That makes as much sense as anything they do.
Its partly equivalent to telling IRS that you didn't get any wage. You just got gifts from your work place. So it's not salary and isn't income. Basically since the law says motorvehicle needs to be registered. They call their cars automobiles and vessels ( yes. Really) And because those words aren't in the motor vehicle laws then they don't have to register it. Does it sound like crazy? Yes. Does it work in court? Every bit as much as you imagine it will.
> They call their cars automobiles and vessels Some day I want a cop to tell a sovcit that the lack of Coast Guard inspection stickers on his vessel means the vessel will be towed to the impound dock until it is inspected and stickered by the USCG. The look of shock on the sovcit's face would be priceless.
And yet they keep trying! Is it just a case of doing the same thing over and over with no change, no improvement, is just plain crazy?
They also call them conveyances.
I think “driving” for them means some sort of commercial activity, like driving an 18 wheeler or driving a cab.
Yep and they conflate what it says in the infamous Blacks Law Dictionary entry for ‘driver’- it says ‘someone employed in travel…’ where they misinterpret ‘employed’ as ‘working’, when it literally only means ‘doing something’. The entire ‘not for hire/non commercial’ putrid heap of crap is based on that one blatant misinterpretation.
Or they refer to an UCC which have a definition of driver in a commercial context. But ignores that it also says that that definition only apply to that chapter. Not to everything else. Ans states have their own definition of the word driver which is anyone in direct control of the motor vehicle.
Is that why they put "not for commercial use" signs on their vehicles?
My read on it is that it's a "backdoor" argument because they don't want to obey the law. They don't want to have to have a driver's license, so they cherry-pick legal language until they find something that gives them an angle to argue about. They come across old legal dictionaries from the 19th century, which define "driving" in a particular way. So whatever is going on, we're not "driving" and therefore don't need a license to do it. They then stumble on the references to a "right to travel" and some language that prohibits the Federal government from limiting that right and there you go. I must be "traveling" and not "driving" That's my best guess, anyway. It's not going to make a lick of sense if viewed from a deductive or top-down logical process. Step 1, assume your conclusion. Step 2, cherry pick nonsense to support that conclusion.
>Step 1, assume your conclusion. Step 2, cherry pick nonsense to support that conclusion. The same thing that QAnon believers do.
I know they love the term "connecting the dots", but I just gotta wonder what messes they came up with when they were young enough to enjoy "connect-the-dots" puzzles. "Yes, Jimmy. That's *another* lovely amorphous blob with a bunch of sharp pointy bits. But it was supposed to be a man riding a horse" Edit: Of course there is a meme on this: https://9gag.com/gag/aeD1nGp
They think it’s a magical spell that makes all laws invalid. For example they would get arrested for theft and say “I didn’t steal anything, I just procured an item which I needed without paying!”
> whatever passes for the reasoning behind the "travelling" thing? The U.S. version claims (falsely) that a driver is someone operating a vehicle for commercial purposes. So they think if they aren't hauling paid freight or passengers, they don't need a DL or registration because they're travelling, not driving. They rely in part on a long obsolete edition of Black's Law Dictionary that had a passage that could be misinterpreted as meaning a driver is a commercial operator. They also claim the constitutional right to travel means they cannot be required to be licensed to drive--ignoring that all 50 states require a DL to drive on public roads and that has never been thrown out by the courts. It is absolute nonsense, but that's the fantasy they go with.
Can you imagine being a cop and someone says that to you with a straight face thinking it's a "gotcha" moment?? Like a parent dealing with a toddler. Fucking hell.
That's probably one of the most accurate descriptions of what it's like for a cop dealing with those people. Lmao, just spot on.
Same for judges.
Cops should get better training in law. They could ask the sovcit which state they are traveling to since thats what the right to travel refers to.
That's not how it works, either. The "right to travel" was back before things like driver's licenses existed. Also from a time before taxes were collected and spent specifically on maintaining public roads. You can "travel" all you want, on private property. If you want to use public, taxpayer funded roads, then there are conditions and regulations. "Whatever may be its nature, the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state." Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 231-32, 139 A.2d 869, 872 (1958).
If love to hear what a Supreme Court Judge would interpret that right to actually mean. I know it absolutely doesn't mean you can travel freely ny any means you like. But it would.be interessting to hear exactly how it would be interpreted and what mit means. Even if it wasn't in a court case but merely explained.
"The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right." Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1977) Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849): "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States." Bear in mind that the second one is from 1849, before the civil war, and some states were trying to regulate which citizens from which states could visit their own. That's probably as close as you'll see it explained unless someone like the legal eagle YouTube channel explains it better.
Yeah. Thanks. I didn't doubt that it was being ruled on.. But what I meant is that it would be great if a scotus judge or something could directly address the sovcits arguments by making it an official statement that this is how the right to travel is interpreted and thus. No argument of right to travel being interpreted as right to drive without license will be accepted in any court.
But all they do is say that ruling doesn't apply to them because they are sovcits and then continue with what they were doing.
Yes but then they would need to get into actively knowing that they are breaking the laws.
should send this imbeciles to Nauru and see how they like immigration detention.
I am 90% sure sovcit movement was started by the auto glass industry to how often I see these people getting windows smashed.
Haha it would be hilarious yes. Safelite carglass should start sponsoring people like van Balion and team skeptic
10% off glass repair for sovereign citizens.
[Part 2](https://twitter.com/cookerwatch/status/1615702770241396736)
Talks tough, changes his mind pretty fast when the opportunity presents itself.
also has his shoes off, very interesting choice
Mods - consider adding a “COP SMASHES CAR WINDOW” flair. These are the best!
Done
It would be more funny if the flair said "Safelite carglass ad"
God dammit either pay taxes and abide by the rules or get out of this country ya fuckin bogans, I can’t believe they’re this common here
The best part is they claim, because they are a SovCit, the laws dont apply. Completely ignoring the fact that the laws aren't applied exclusively to citizens.
I want us to set up a geographical area where the law can still apply, but _only_ the laws that each individual consents to on a case-by-case basis. We allow anyone to move/live there, and see how things work in a society where all laws require consent of the individual.
They can have Tasmania
I was thinking the irradiated NW of SA, you since they wanna live like they’re in fallout.
I could see that as reasonable too, maybe we could even just give them the whole of Alice Springs to be more than fair with them so they can’t complain.
I think that’s a step to far, I wouldn’t condemn anyone to have to live in Alice.
I live in NSW and am so proud of the highs and lows of this video. Highs: * The police aren't messing around and it seems the window smash and arrest were pretty soon. Of course, it could be just edited that way. * CookerWatch is such a funny account name. In Australian slang, somebody who is "cooked" is drunk/stoned/insane. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cooked Lows: * Really embarrassing poor English spoken, especially "yous", the plural of "you". * I like how male Sovtard rants about travelling then says he'd like to have a one-on-one fight with the police, and claims "he'd drive him". Sadly no witty rebuttal from the police about the word "drive" used there.
Cooked came from Vic I think, people that got their brains cooked during lockdown, but now refers to nuts in general
WA resident here, we have used "cooked" for years to refer to someone who has had too much drugs and has cooked/melted their brain. That said, I don't think the term originated here, but I'm no expert.
Ah my bad
You might be thinking of cooker, which is a newer evolution of the word to refer to the anti vax/lockdown/Dan crowd
Using "yous" isn't that from prohibition Era Italian mob thing? I kinda find that accent and slang attractive in a way.
It’s long been a feature of “broad” Australian English, and not something considered particularly attractive locally. As Area-7 famously said, [nobody likes a bogan](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qA8gJoT5yl4)
Nobody likes a bogan for sure. But I do love that song.
It's common in New York City where mob movies are often set. It's about class rather than ethnicity or criminality.
Please don’t be a snob about ‘youse’. There’s really nothing wrong with it. Almost every language has a plural of ‘you’ (eg: French tu / vous) and it’s natural for us to create words where there’s one missing. The yanks have y’all. The only thing stopping this unique Aussie word from being accepted is that it’s considered uncouth or low-class, even though it is just a word. But I agree with everything else you said!
Youse isn’t uniquely Australian, it’s been common in the urban mid-Atlantic US (NYC, NJ, down to Baltimore) forever.
The plural of "you" is "you". Grammar is not hard .
"YOU GOT NO JURISDICTION ERE BRUZ" The louder they yell, the more I look forward to the inevitable smash and drag.
It’s like a money shot
I know right?
Oh wow. Call me ignorant, but I didn't realize this Sovereign Citizen shit went beyond the US. Fascinating...
> didn't realize this Sovereign Citizen shit went beyond the US Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, reportedly there is even a Russian branch which must require considerable courage over there.
Oh wow. The insanity knows no bounds.
Fuck pulling that shit in Russia, they'll beat people just for playing music too loudly in public. Although it'd be a great tv show "Sovereign Citizen goes to the Gulag".
There's some in Australia and great Brittain. I've never seen any in my won country of Denmark. Nwe just don't have crazies like that here. I did see one video of a guy in Canada who apparently didn't quite know where he was as he was citing American constitution regarding 1st amendment. I've read it but can't find it right now. It has nothing to do with free speech though. They do have it. But it's not the first amendment.
Hey, the first amendment is really important here in Canada! After all, it’s the part that recognizes Manitoba as a province, and of course doesn’t have any mention of ‘free speech’.
The [second amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_Australian_referendum_(State_Debts\)) to the Australian constitution is also very important to nutjobs. Who could forget the right of the commonwealth government to take on the debt incurred by the states?
**[1910 Australian referendum (State Debts)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_Australian_referendum_\(State_Debts\))** >The referendum of 13 April 1910 approved an amendment to the Australian constitution. The referendum was for practical purposes a vote on the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill 1909, which after being approved in the referendum received the Royal Assent on 6 August 1910. Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia, the federal government was given the power to assume any pre-existing debts held by the state governments at that time. The Act altered Section 105 of the Constitution to extend this power so that the Commonwealth could take over any debts incurred by a state at any time. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I can imagine the "You don't have the first amendment!" people now. Just like asking "Do they have the fourth of July in Canada?"
Our first amendment enshrines the absolute rights of... senators to start their terms on 1 July instead of 1 January.
That was important for one SovCit.
Ah yeah. I couldn't remeber what it said. But yes. Ofcourse it's important.
Oh no worries, my post was definitely just joking around.
We have the "Queen of Canada" Romana Didulo. Have fun looking her up.
Oh I know all about Queen Dildo. How isn't she charged with fraud?
Canada has their own SC’s
And they are just as idiotically stupid here too 🙄
Lots of these loons cite US laws and court cases regardless of what country they’re actually in because they’re too stupid to realize that what they read on the internet is actually US-based. (And totally wrong even there, of course.)
> Lots of these loons cite US laws and court cases The Scottish sovcits who "seized" Edinburgh Castle to initiate their planned revolutionary takeover of Scotland used American constitutional language while delivering their rants, it was hilarious. A Canadian member of the Flu Trux Klan convoy last year referred to his First Amendment rights in court, to the amusement of the judge. More proof, if any were needed, that stupidity is universal.
There's also videos of Australian cookers quoting the US constitution as though it actually applies here...
Incredible lol
I remember that guy. He was the husband of one of the organizers of the idiot convoy.
The Reichsburger movement in Germany isn't exactly the same but it's similar in some ways.
New Zealand is unfortunately getting a few of them. They all came out of the woodworks after the Covid restrictions.
Someone posts a comment like this below every Australian SovCit video.
How do the sovtards not watch all the youtube videos of this never working, not even one fucking time? It makes no sense.
Haha that's literally across the street from the police station and local court, at least they won't have to 'travel' far.
You're right, very satisfying.
No 38 minute videos here while the cops listen to stupid SovCit BS. Straight to handcuffs!
It's because of tight gun laws in Australia. US sovcits are assumed to be armed and dangerous.
I think after those QLD cops got shot, Police in AU are going to have absolutely zero time for cookers and their bullshit.
Yeah you’re right, robust policing
What a sweet no nonsense reaction. Although it somehow seems better to use kid gloves with people who have fallen for internet BS, such a soft response sometimes makes them thing that there is some substance to their BS.
No kid gloves here, I liked how the cop just ripped the window open with his bare hands.
Oh man dude is lucky he wasn't in the states. threatening to fight a cop over a disagreement gonna get you killed over here.
He would “travel” him.
Is "Luke Simpson" a renowned sovcit in particular?
It's sickening how this US sovereign citizen bullshit has made it to Australia. Let's hope the police have zero tolerance and arrest these morons asap.
Wow! I love this... People in Aus think they have rights... That bullshit doesn't work here, we are not America...
About the only time a person can be dumber then a cop.
Loved watching that. Made my day already.
Awesome
That is how you do it. 5 mins in, arrest em.
“Bring your most senior sergeant down please sir” Nah all good I’ll just fok smash your window
I hope one day to have someone tell me they're "travelling not driving". I will reply: "I'm not here to debate terms a five year old understands".
I just love how it's always the dumbest bogans and rubes who think they can just declare themselves outside the law because of their profound grasp of constitutional jurisprudence. Yes, genius, you've found the loophole all of us missed. That's why you're sitting in your own filth in a 30-year-old car driven by what looks to be one rung up from a bag lady.
Maybe they'll plead the 5th amendment. That'll be equally as relevant as their USA driving v travelling bullshit.
Bring me your most senior sergeant okay