SovCits in Court

[bunsen_h]

"Sovereign citizens" in court often claim that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over them.  Commenters — some of whom really should know better — sometimes ask why, if they really believe that the court lacks jurisdiction, they are showing up at all.  "If I didn't think the court had jurisdiction over me, I'd just stay home."

It's possible to be so delusional as to think that the court lacks jurisdiction, but not so delusional as to think that the court doesn't have the power of the state to use / abuse to compel attendance.  Delusional enough to swallow whatever SovCit creed is in play, whole, but not so delusional as to fail to grasp that the consequences of not showing up would be dire and should be avoided.  Failure to appear is often a crime in itself.

The proper way to contest jurisdiction is to bring it up, in court, per the defined protocols.  The craziness lies in abusing those protocols, in using bogus arguments based on obviously-flawed premises, and in trying to argue the same points repeatedly after the judge has made a ruling.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

There's a difference between believing that the nation's laws, properly interpreted, don't give the government jurisdiction and expecting the government will abide by that claim. We can see the difference more clearly by looking at countries, such as Russia, which have paper guarantees of civil liberties but shouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's safe to exercise them. Defending oneself in court may be futile under those circumstances, but ignoring the summons (assuming they aren't already in detention) without going into hiding would be more foolish. Also, appearing in court gives them a chance to state their arguments publicly. Going to court is both the more principled and more sensible thing to do.

You can argue that the people claiming they have the right to criticize Putin are right, and the ones who (for example) say that income tax is optional are wrong. But given their views, going to court to argue them is the right thing.

[bunsen_h]

A few weeks ago, I saw a video in which Judge Phyllis Webster, in Kansas, was challenged by a SovCit to "prove" that she had jurisdiction. She spent several minutes explaining, in detail, how the system worked: how some areas of law were administered by states, how laws were created and passed, how jurisdiction worked, how she became a judge and therefore had authority. She asked the defendant if he had any other questions, and after a brief pause, he replied that she "still haven't prove that she had jurisdiction". From the perspective of educating that defendant, it was a complete waste of time. He was either too mentally-unfit to understand, or too firmly locked into his creed, or being intentionally obstructive. But it was still a very good lecture.

[madfilkentist]

It does help when people can express their case clearly. Maybe nobody else will believe them, but at least they'll have presented their point. The "argument" in that Kansas case didn't even take mental effort.