Case Law

[AFTP]

I've been asked for proof that the Sovereign Citizen is BS with case law so they have "proof".
Can anyone point me to some?

[LaVidaRoja]

Regardless of what you cite, expect to be told; "That's not [adequate] case law." Many of these people will reject anything that does not say specifically; "John Smith (i.e., name of person you are speaking with) is liable for Federal income taxes on every dime he receives from (name of every payer)"

[Backo]

This is an Australian case where a defendant to a cannabis possession charge pleaded sovereign immunity. The Judge went into some detail as to what constituted sovereign immunity, because he is that sort of Judge.

Till v Wheeler [2008] QDC 74 http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/ ... 08-074.pdf

The appearances section records that the defendant was represented by “unidentified representative for the appellant” . Mr Till subscribes to the strawman argument.

Mr Till was convicted on two occasions for the possession of cannabis. Amusingly, the second occasion was when he attended Court with a cannabis plant, presumably to make some point or other.

The contents of Mr Till’s outline of argument:

are essentially unintelligible, and do not constitute anything in the way of a coherent argument addressing any of the grounds in either notice of appeal, or advancing anything relevant to the question of whether either appeal should be allowed. He stated, for example: “I am a sovereign being living in a sovereign estate in the greater universe continuum. … Sovereignty is not subject to law, it is the law, and its greatest claim to power is that IT and nothing else is the law. …” The closest this comes to anything in the way of an intelligible legal argument is an assertion that the appellant is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Judge MacGill then outlines both the common law and statutory basis for a claim of sovereign immunity. The relevant passages are not long and I will set them out in full:

Sovereign immunity
[5] At common law the position of a sovereign was clear. “It is clear law that the courts of this country will not implead a foreign sovereign, that is, they will not by their process make him against his will a party to legal proceedings, whether the proceedings involve process against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages.” – Van Heyningen v Netherlands-Indies Government [1949] St R Qd 54 at 60. This comes from the notion that the authority of the courts derived from the sovereign who is not superior to a foreign sovereign, so that disputes between two sovereigns cannot be decided in the court of one of them. “For this purpose all sovereigns are equal. The independent sovereign of the smallest state stands on the same footing as the monarch of the greatest.” This extended to prosecutions of criminal offences in the ordinary courts.

[6] The doctrine of sovereign immunity was codified in England by the State Immunity Act 1978. By that time, there had been a certain amount of development in the doctrine so far as it related to the capacity to bring civil actions against foreign governments or foreign states in the domestic courts, and the legislation was principally directed to those issues. Following this, in 1982 the Commonwealth Attorney-General referred to the Commonwealth Law Reform Commission the issue of sovereign or state immunity, and in 1984 the Law Reform Commission issued a report on “foreign state immunity” which included a draft of suitable legislation. The report was principally directed to the question of the extent to which activities of foreign states, particularly activities which were essentially of a commercial nature, should expose the states or bodies associated with the states to the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts.

[7] By the 1980s there was relatively little consideration given to the issue of personal immunity for individual sovereigns, but the question of heads of state was considered, and it was recommended at paragraph 163 that their position be best dealt with by equating their status for the purposes of domestic courts with heads of diplomatic missions. The position of diplomats had become well established by a series of international conventions, culminating in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which was adopted in Australia by the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967, s 7(1). Article 31 of the convention provides for diplomatic agents, which includes heads of mission, immunity from domestic courts
in relation to inter alia criminal matters.

[8] The Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, which was enacted following the report of the Commission, essentially adopted it, and provided in s 36 that a foreign head of state, which would include a foreign sovereign, would have the same immunity as a head of mission. Accordingly now, by statute, a foreign sovereign has immunity from the criminal courts in Australia.

[9] The difficulty facing the appellant in relation to this assertion, however, is the question of proof. In some circumstances the identity of a sovereign may be sufficiently notorious that proof will be unnecessary and the court will take judicial notice of the relevant fact. In other circumstances, at common law the court acted on a certificate from the relevant minister or department as to the recognition of the relevant sovereign by Australia. In Mighell (supra) the court acted on a certificate as to the status of the Sultan of Johore sent on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies by an official of the Colonial Office. In Van Heyningen (supra) the court acted on a letter from the Acting Minister for External Affairs as to the status of the Dutch East Indies. This has been said to be the only procedure by which the question of whether a sovereign is a sovereign may be proved for the purposes of a proceeding in court.

[10] The 1985 Act also provides the appropriate mechanism for proof that a particular individual is a head of a foreign state for the purposes of the Act: by s 40, the Minister for Foreign Affairs may certify in writing who is or was the head of a foreign state for the purposes of the Act, and may delegate the power to so certify. By subsection (5), such a certificate is admissible and conclusive evidence on the point. Accordingly, the appropriate method of proof is to produce a certificate from the Minister or the Minister’s delegate. The appellant has provided no evidence from the Minister for Foreign Affairs or his department that he is a sovereign recognised by Australia. Although the Act makes the certificate conclusive, it does not expressly provide that this is the only method of proof, but it does not expressly authorise any other method of proof, and it seems to me that the common law position laid down by Lord Atkin would apply, at least in any case where the position was not so plain as to justify the taking of judicial notice.

[11] Even if this is not correct, and it would be possible to prove, by historical materials or other documents or evidence properly put before the court, that the appellant was a sovereign, there was no evidence in the present case to that effect put before the magistrate, nor any proper attempt to put any such evidence before me. A mere assertion by an individual or on behalf of an individual that he is sovereign is not conclusive, or indeed of any weight. The claim of sovereign immunity must be rejected.

(emphasis added and citations omitted)

Of course this is an Australian case and no doubt, English US and Canadians would-be sovereigns would distinguish it on that basis. However, it is an interesting treatise on the common law position and the correct method of proving sovereignty, in Australia at least.

[Famspear]

The following are just some of the tax cases involving "sovereign citizen" arguments.

Johnson v. Commissioner (Phyllis Johnson's argument—that she was not subject to the federal income tax because she was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the Court). 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 189, T.C. Memo 1978-32 (1978).

Wikoff v. Commissioner (argument by Austin Wikoff—that he was not subject to the federal income tax because he was an "individual sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the Court). 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 1539, T.C. Memo 1978-372 (1978).

United States v. Hart (Douglas Hart's argument—in response to lawsuit against him for filing false lien notices against IRS personnel, that the U.S. District Court had no jurisdiction over him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit). 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

Young v. Internal Revenue Serv. (Jerry Young's argument—that the Internal Revenue Code did not pertain to him because he was a "sovereign citizen"—was rejected by the U.S. District Court). 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984).

Stoecklin v. Commissioner (Kenneth Stoecklin's argument—that he was a "freeborn and sovereign" person and was therefore not subject to the income tax laws—was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Court imposed $3,000 penalty on Stoecklin for filing frivolous appeal). 865 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1989).

Risner v. Commissioner (Gregg Risner's argument—that he was not subject to federal income tax because he was a "Self-governing Free Born Sovereign Citizen"—was rejected by the Court as being a "frivolous protest" of the tax laws). Docket # 18494-95, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2210, T.C. Memo 1996-82, United States Tax Court (February 26, 1996).

Maxwell v. Snow (Lawrence Maxwell's arguments—that he was not subject to U.S. federal law because he was a "sovereign citizen of the Union State of Texas", that the United States was not a republican form of government and therefore must be abolished as unconstitutional, that the Secretary of the Treasury's jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia, and that he was not a citizen of the United States—were rejected by the Court as being frivolous). 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Rowe v. Internal Revenue Serv. (Heather Rowe's argument—that she was not subject to federal income tax because she was not a "party to any social compact or contract", because the IRS had no jurisdiction over her or her property, because she was "not found within the territorial limited jurisdiction of the US", because she was a "sovereign Citizen of the State of Maine", and because she was "not a U.S. Citizen as described in 26 U.S.C. 865(g)(1)(A)..."—was rejected by the Court and was ruled to be "frivolous"). Case no. 06-27-P-S, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (May 9, 2006).

Glavin v. United States (John Glavin's argument—that he was not subject to an Internal Revenue Service summons because, as a sovereign citizen, he was not a citizen of the United States—was rejected by the Court). Case no. 10-MC-6-SLC, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (June 4, 2010).

United States v. Greenstreet (Gale Greenstreet's arguments — that he was of "Freeman Character" and "of the White Preamble Citizenship and not one of the 14th Amendment legislated enfranchised De Facto colored races", that he was a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas", and that he was a sovereign, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court — were ruled to be "entirely frivolous"). 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996).

[AFTP]

Thank you, this is helpful.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I've been asked for proof that the Sovereign Citizen is BS with case law so they have "proof".
Can anyone point me to some?

Unfortunately, "proof" cannot be established in people who are imbued with "magical thinking."

Anything you present to them that challenges or even dismisses their belief will be dismissed. That's the nature of the beast.

[AFTP]

So I show them the cases and I'm hit with comparing obeying tax law with laws of the Third Reich.
My response, apples and oranges.

Hell, everyone knows the Nazis were better organizers than the US Govt.

[Backo]

Are you able to link to the discussion?

[Chados]

Goodness, guys-we can't have this discussion without the contribution of A.C.J. Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench!

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... MAAAAAAAAB

[AFTP]

Join the discussion here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55pjFKal ... y_received

[AFTP]

I've been told that even though this was in Canada the California Government Code Sections 11120 and 54950 contain strong statements about the sovereignty of the people.

I haven't looked at it but I'm sure in his mind it clears it all up.

[wserra]

I've been told that even though this was in Canada the California Government Code Sections 11120 and 54950 contain strong statements about the sovereignty of the people.

CA Govt Code § 11120:

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

CA Govt Code § 54950:

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

So, in other words, those two sections of the open meeting law mean that you sovruns can ignore the entire remaining body of CA law.

I haven't looked at it but I'm sure in his mind it clears it all up.

I'm sure it does.

[AndyK]

Irrespective of any laws or court decisions brought to their attention, true sovereigns will reject all of them.

A true sovereignoramus will rely on at least one of the following two (or possibly more that they can come up with) reasons to rebut any alleged facts which challenge their world view.

1 - None of the cited cases/decisions were issued by the Supreme Court. Thus, they are only interim decisions, subject to reversal at any time by a higher court. It doesn't matter that the original cases may have been raised to appellate courts (including the Supremes) all of which denied cert. If a decision wasn't issued (and ONLY one for publication) the result is irrelevant.

2 - None of the cited cases EXACTLY parallel the theories/arguments raised by the sovereignoramus OR the person who lost the case missed one particular piece of paperwork, step in the process, or even a phrase which would have totally reversed the outcome.

Once the bulls-eye has been painted around the bullet hole, there's no way of convincing the shooter that he's not a marksman.

[Pottapaug1938]

To AndyK's list I would add:

3. All of the cited cases hide behind labels like "frivolous", because the courts are corrupt/paid by the state, and afraid of biting the hand that feeds them/afraid of an IRA audit, and do not want to acknowledge the righteousness ands correctness of the sovrun's contentions.

4. None of the cited cases rely on the (reverent nod of head) Common Law -- at least, the Common Law as true sovruns understand it. In fact, they go out of their way to ignore it.

[notorial dissent]

You forgot the most important qualification, that the sovereignoramus will be standing there with fingers in ears, going loudly la la la la la!!!!

[Number Six]

Andrew Melechinsky(Constitutional Revival) used to say that case law was an abomination. In this way the bare bones version of the Constitution can be presented as "the law of the land" while judges are constantly ruling against it. Cases by case examinations whether you are looking at the law or investments or social actions and problems is the clearest way to establish likely actions and reactions following in any given circumstance. It is really too bad that there are many who teach an impossible theoretical in the face of the practical realities of life.

[AFTP]

After showing all the case law this is his response:

"David my gut tells me you are a government employee.. get off my case unless you can prove me with evidence that what you are saying is true and correct. The cases you have shown below tell me nothing. Did you look into Dean Clifford s case? Why can't they do anything to him?? He declares himself sovereign..."


Now I know how you guys feel.

Who is Dean Clifford?

[notorial dissent]

As I said, la, la, la, la.....

[Famspear]

David my gut tells me you are a government employee.. get off my case unless you can prove me with evidence that what you are saying is true and correct. The cases you have shown below tell me nothing. Did you look into Dean Clifford s case? Why can't they do anything to him?? He declares himself sovereign..."

My response to him would be, "No, I'm not going to get off your case, and no, I'm not here to 'prove' to you with 'evidence' that what I am saying is true and correct. I know the law. You don't. I'm here to lay down the law. And yes, the cases I've shown you tell you everything you need to know. And no, I don't need to look into 'Dean Clifford's case'. Get your head out of your *ss."

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like a good start to me, probably won't work as you didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, but definitely worth a try.