I keep trying to think of something amusing to say but this site pretty much speaks for it's self:Sugar citizens are individuals who stand up for their right to engage in non-commercial prostitution and non-commercial drug possession. Our job is to educate Americans that the prostitution and drug laws have been misapplied for the ultimate participants.
We are not affiliated with the Sovereign Citizen’s movement. Although we share their beliefs, we don’t engage in activities commonly associated with sovereign citizens; in motor vehicle litigation, making sovereign license plates, or declaration of sovereign citizenship. We don’t specialize in these areas of law. We only specialize in the areas of drug and prostitution laws.
Who controls the British crown?The author of this blog talked to a sovereign citizen one day at a coffee shop. The sovereign citizen told him his conspiracy about the attorneys and judges. The sovereign citizen believes that many attorneys and judges in the United States are members of the same secret society that Homer Simpson joined in the 12th episode of 6th season of “The Simpsons.” He believes the war on drugs, prostitution, terrorism, property, crime, etc. are created by this secret society to bring America into a New World Order. We don’t have any evidence of such a conspiracy theory so we cannot claim this conspiracy is true. This is one of the reasons why sovereign citizens and other anti-government groups don’t trust attorneys for legal services.
Who keeps the Metric System down?
We do! We do!
The Loopholes Page actually sorta solves a mystery for me. That being why do some sovereigns and tax protestors seem to believe the word "includes" restricts a category as apposed to indicating that only part of that category is being referenced. But then again, my Latin sucks:
Include
“Include (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within.) To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.” –Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition
“include …. Foreign phrases: In eo quod plus sit semper inest et minus.The less is always included in the greater. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.” -From The Free Legal Dictionary by Farlex
The word “include” in legal terminology is restricted to what is mentioned except when the phrase “including but not limited” is used. According to the Cannon of Construction, this word does not open to a thing or person that is not mentioned in the sentence. In common terminology, this word can be expansive. If an attorney argues with you saying the word “include” is expansive, then you can agree with them. IF THE WORD “INCLUDE” EXTEND TO THINGS NOT MENTIONED, THEN THE THING MENTIONED MUST BE IN THE ACTION OR PERSON. For example, my rock collection includes moon rocks. The moon rocks cannot be excluded from the collection but must be part of the collection. If the moon rocks are not part of the rock collection, then the sentence will be incorrect. The word “include” can extend to other types of rocks but the moon rocks must be contain in the collection.
I'm pretty sure "include" isn't derived from "Inclaudere" so much as "enclosure" is. Maybe their Latin sucks too. The rest of the definitions are similarly hair brained:
To be fair, if you start by accepting those definitions for the relevant terms, the rest of the reasoning isn't all that crazy (but only because you'd have a really good head start). The drug defense seems to be centered around a very tortured (not to mention completely out of context) reading of statutes and a few random leaps of reasoning:Hire
“hire, vb. (bef. 12c) 1. To engage the labor or services of another for wages or other payment.”
-Black Law’s Dictionary 9th Edition
Hiring is different than private contracting. In hiring, there are a minimum of three persons involved. In private contracting, two persons can be involved. The author discussed the “hire” requirements in some state’s prostitution law with a sovereign citizen. He said that this is in the context of pimping or escort agencies. The word “another” communicates there are three persons involved. The pimp recruits the provider. The other person being served by a provider is the client. Hiring is commercial because there are three persons involved, an account open, and paying afterwards. There must be a minimum of two people being served to be consider hired.
Not to mention a few well worn chestnuts:Federal Ultimate User Laws
“The term ‘‘ultimate user’’ means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household.” – 21 U.S.C. 802 subsection (27)
“(c) Exceptions The following persons shall not be required to register and may lawfully possess any controlled substance or list I chemical under this subchapter: …..
(3) An ultimate user who possesses such substance for a purpose specified in section 802(25) 1 of this title.”-21 U.S.C. 822 subsection (c) 3
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” –US Constitution 14th Amendment
I don't think we can prove the author of this website needs to pay for sex but it's evident they have experience with powerfully mind altering substances.If asserting the defense of ultimate user, commerce must be rebutted in court. If not rebutted, the court presume that the person who possessing control substance is in commerce. Commerce involves manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing control substance. Possessing control substance is a victimless crime. Without commerce, the court does not have jurisdiction over a victimless crime.