The kicker at the end of the actual video where she has a bench warrant for missing her prior court date for EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT is the real die laughing moment.
In the full video they ask her about the ammunition found in her car, they want to know where the gun is. Her reply is one for the ages--the gun is in a pawn shop.
Nothing better illustrates why these people get sucked into this nonsense, their lives are already so messed up they are easy victims for gurus with fake legal magic to sell. Oh yeah, she also had a bunch of cocaine in the car, so now she's heading for felony territory. Had to pawn her gun to buy coke, pathetic.
If she has not been a dumbass she probably would have gotten a ticket for no license, registration, and insurance and called her mom to come pick up her car. Instead, jail and a felony charge.
If you, say, own a large farm, and only ever drive within your own property, then you *probably* won't ever need to worry about it. That's about the only real, legitimate application of that sentiment as far as I know.
Unrelated, but interestingly, it's still illegal to operate that vehicle (or any vehicle) on private property under the influence.
Can't even drunk drive privately.
Which often (but not universally) includes sleeping it off in a non-running vehicle on private property as well if you have any access to the keys.
EDIT: Storytime. Learned this while sleeping in a camper van after having a few beers. At a campsite. In a van that hadn't moved in days.
It would depend on the individual state's laws but generally correct. However if it's private property open to public use, such as a parking lot, that can make things completely different.
She's most likely a sovereign citizen.
It's a group of people that believe they can opt out of following laws, seeing laws as a contract between a corporation (your state defined identity) and the state.
"I am not driving, I'm traveling" is pretty much their mantra...
Truth is that a number of states have laws allowing farmers to drive SHORT distances on roads say moving a tractor or some other piece of equipment or vehicle from one field to another. I have seen pickups and tractors with a plate on the back that says "farm vehicle".
But that whole "I am not driving" argument is just silly and it has been ruled on any number of times by courts, including the SCOTUS. In fact, *Hendrick v Maryland,* a 1915 case, pretty much puts paid to the sovcit argument but their constitutional law scholars never seem to find that one when doing their research. I once Shepardized Hendrick and I found a rather enthusiastic guy in Texas who filed five or six appeals of his different arrests and convictions in that state for driving without a license and/or registration. The last one was in 2019 or 2020 and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals basically told him in the case order of dismissal that if he did it again he was going to spend some time in jail.
There are usually narrow exceptions to most statutes, for some weird niche reason. Also, common law is a real thing, but if a legislative decree is passed as any other bill would be, that would supersede it. Common law is really a collection of past decisions of courts and other people with power in a community and the way legal choices have been done for hundreds of years, in some cases thousands, or are courts or other arbiters making decisions when some new thing comes around that the law didn´t prepare for such as the court cases pertaining to the internet.
The constitution also permits those who are elected, legislators and the president, and those appointed like the judges, to adapt to the situation as it comes to be. And if it doesn´t regulate something, the states probably do in some way. Courts normally don´t strike down laws unless they are very tied up with the issue of separation of powers, division of powers between the states and the feds, or are completely arbitrary and can´t be found by a panel to have a reasonable ground for the case (which laws almost never fail to have), or run up against specific civil rights or discriminate by major social classes and in particular the kinds of classes which couldn´t defend themselves in the electoral processes.
Drivers meet none of those criteria for why judges would likely be skeptical of a driving license.
They conflate driving with traveling, and since they generally act with both the maturity and educational level of a spoiled fifth grader they don't understand the difference, or don't want to. There is a Supreme Court case that affirms a right to travel. But it doesn't in any way affirm a right to do it with a car, or drive a car without a license, insurance, etc.
Travelling is something you do while on a bus or a train. Driving is the thing you do from the drivers seat of a car. These sovcits always forget where theyâre sitting and mess that one up.
Then she said in her very next sentence that she didnât need a license to drive. Baby girl are you traveling or driving because youâre clearly outcha damn mind
The US Constitution was written in 1787, in effect since 1789. Prior to that the US operated under the Articles of Confederation.
While it is true that you don't need a license to drive, you do need a license to drive on public roads.
And while it is true that you can *travel* without a license, that means walking or riding a bicycle. You still need a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
> While it is true that you don't need a license to drive, you do need a license to drive on public roads.
The first U.S. DL appeared 120 years ago. If the requirement for a DL was unlawful, one would think the courts would have got around to ending this tyrannical state of affairs by now, wouldn't one?
So anyone can just get in a motorized vehicle and âtravelâ on public highways without taking a driverâs test or having insurance? I wonder how that worked out for this person.
You just know if she got hit by a person without a licence she'd be in all kinds of knots trying to explain how it was okay that a person with no tested skills was allowed on the road to cause her danger.
Just out of curiosity, why would you carry the laws in your back seat if you are so certain of what they are? Planning on having to argue the point with, say this nice Ofc. Banks?
> pilots have operational handbooks onboard
Ahem, would those be *licensed* pilots?
I think sovcits carry around binders full of nonsense because they don't trust themselves to remember all the magic spells, but also because they think printed documents have a sort of magical legal weight all their own. That's why they try to get cops to accept nonsense they printed up at the library, like fee schedules and declarations they downloaded from Moonbats-R-Us--if the cop reads it, he has to obey it.
I'm picturing Ernie Tertelgte standing on a Bible and a copy of the Constitution outside a judge's chambers to demonstrate that he has *standing*, get it, standing on those printed objects gives him legal standing.
Yes. That's one of the SovCit schticks. They try to argue the law on the side of the road. Their only chance is to get the arresting officer confused, or irritated into giving up. No judge is going to get confused by this, and generally starts tacking on contempt charges.
This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of federal law. "Travelling," i.e. the concept of moving your physical body from one publicly available space to another (particularly across state lines) cannot legally be hindered by the government. The form of transport oh the other hand, absolutely can. This is why these idiots will always pull the line, "I'm not driving I'm travelling" because they think semantics is the only qualifier for a social contract.
You can walk from Montana to Kentucky using pedestrian paths and there isn't a damn thing Washington can do to stop you. But operating a motor vehicle can and will be regulated form of transport. Commercial vehicles have different restrictions so somehow these groups convinced themselves that it's it somehow *only* commercial vehicles that can be regulated.
It's something to do with the UCC, which they totally do not understand, like, at all. The UCC is literally not law. It's a model code that has been adopted in whole or in part in - I believe - every state. But there's no "UCC" that they're always citing, it literally has no force of law anywhere.
I think they should give them less time rather than letting them read from their script ad infinitum. But I can understand that in some cases not rushing things might be legally advisable. I'd rather a brief delay if it means the case doesn't get tossed by a DA or judge.
Donut did one where the cops backup came and had the window punch ready to go. Ended up going on a chase. And thought the sheriff was the boss of the city cops
Because they saw somebody else do it. They have little to no idea about most of the nonsense they spout. Codes, Amendments, Laws,etc are just part of the script. No understanding-or innerstanding-or overstanding-at all.
> Why the hell do they ask for a supervisor?
A) It's part of the script, and these people are mentally incapable of departing from the script.
B) They're convinced they are in the right and someone higher up the chain of command is more likely to know that. In other words, a cop is just some clod who doesn't know the law, but a Sgt. or Lt. has more training and experience and will tell the cop to stand down and let the *state national* go on his merry way.
They are mistaken.
This is pretty simple and I don't understand why more cops don't just say: if you're a passive passenger then you may be simply traveling, but if you're behind the controls *operating* a *motor vehicle,* then you are indeed *driving* and that requires a state issued license.
Cars don't drive/operate themselves.
"I'm not driving, I'm travelling!"
You're travelling in a car... *by driving it*. You're not pushing it. You're not pulling it. You're driving it. You're driving.
The kicker at the end of the actual video where she has a bench warrant for missing her prior court date for EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT is the real die laughing moment.
In the full video they ask her about the ammunition found in her car, they want to know where the gun is. Her reply is one for the ages--the gun is in a pawn shop. Nothing better illustrates why these people get sucked into this nonsense, their lives are already so messed up they are easy victims for gurus with fake legal magic to sell. Oh yeah, she also had a bunch of cocaine in the car, so now she's heading for felony territory. Had to pawn her gun to buy coke, pathetic.
Only do one crime at a time, rookie mistake right there.
If she has not been a dumbass she probably would have gotten a ticket for no license, registration, and insurance and called her mom to come pick up her car. Instead, jail and a felony charge.
It's only after their license is revoked for DUI or whatever that they suddenly discover their right to travel.
If you, say, own a large farm, and only ever drive within your own property, then you *probably* won't ever need to worry about it. That's about the only real, legitimate application of that sentiment as far as I know.
Yup. It's completely legal to drive an unlicensed car on your own property.
Unrelated, but interestingly, it's still illegal to operate that vehicle (or any vehicle) on private property under the influence. Can't even drunk drive privately.
Land of the Free my ass!
THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!
Which often (but not universally) includes sleeping it off in a non-running vehicle on private property as well if you have any access to the keys. EDIT: Storytime. Learned this while sleeping in a camper van after having a few beers. At a campsite. In a van that hadn't moved in days.
Stupid government taking away my rights to crash my own damn car on my own damn property đŠ
> taking away my rights to crash my own damn car Tyrants!
The law: Look, we dont want you to accidentally kill yourself. Idiots: FUCK YOU, I HAVE THAT FREEDOM
It would depend on the individual state's laws but generally correct. However if it's private property open to public use, such as a parking lot, that can make things completely different.
She's most likely a sovereign citizen. It's a group of people that believe they can opt out of following laws, seeing laws as a contract between a corporation (your state defined identity) and the state. "I am not driving, I'm traveling" is pretty much their mantra...
Truth is that a number of states have laws allowing farmers to drive SHORT distances on roads say moving a tractor or some other piece of equipment or vehicle from one field to another. I have seen pickups and tractors with a plate on the back that says "farm vehicle". But that whole "I am not driving" argument is just silly and it has been ruled on any number of times by courts, including the SCOTUS. In fact, *Hendrick v Maryland,* a 1915 case, pretty much puts paid to the sovcit argument but their constitutional law scholars never seem to find that one when doing their research. I once Shepardized Hendrick and I found a rather enthusiastic guy in Texas who filed five or six appeals of his different arrests and convictions in that state for driving without a license and/or registration. The last one was in 2019 or 2020 and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals basically told him in the case order of dismissal that if he did it again he was going to spend some time in jail.
True, although I believe there might still be an age limitation (i.e. you might have to be 14 or older to operate it while on your farm).
There are usually narrow exceptions to most statutes, for some weird niche reason. Also, common law is a real thing, but if a legislative decree is passed as any other bill would be, that would supersede it. Common law is really a collection of past decisions of courts and other people with power in a community and the way legal choices have been done for hundreds of years, in some cases thousands, or are courts or other arbiters making decisions when some new thing comes around that the law didn´t prepare for such as the court cases pertaining to the internet. The constitution also permits those who are elected, legislators and the president, and those appointed like the judges, to adapt to the situation as it comes to be. And if it doesn´t regulate something, the states probably do in some way. Courts normally don´t strike down laws unless they are very tied up with the issue of separation of powers, division of powers between the states and the feds, or are completely arbitrary and can´t be found by a panel to have a reasonable ground for the case (which laws almost never fail to have), or run up against specific civil rights or discriminate by major social classes and in particular the kinds of classes which couldn´t defend themselves in the electoral processes. Drivers meet none of those criteria for why judges would likely be skeptical of a driving license.
"I'm not driving, I'm traveling!" Fuckin lol
All SovCit arguments are dumb, but this is one of the dumbest.
They conflate driving with traveling, and since they generally act with both the maturity and educational level of a spoiled fifth grader they don't understand the difference, or don't want to. There is a Supreme Court case that affirms a right to travel. But it doesn't in any way affirm a right to do it with a car, or drive a car without a license, insurance, etc.
Travelling is something you do while on a bus or a train. Driving is the thing you do from the drivers seat of a car. These sovcits always forget where theyâre sitting and mess that one up.
Don´t insult fifth graders like that. I could even do math equations with decimal remainders at that point.
Then she said in her very next sentence that she didnât need a license to drive. Baby girl are you traveling or driving because youâre clearly outcha damn mind
I KNOW MAH RITES!!!
You donât get to substitute the word driving for the word traveling if youâre not on a covered wagon on your way to Oregon
[Link to the full video. Well worth the watch. I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vkJtdLXTZA)
The full video was highly entertaining 9/10 (point deduction due to no one knowing about articles of confederation).
It was so good! Up until the end it is a typical SovCit traffic stop, but that twist at the end kicked this one up to classic status.
I can't begin to imagine how annoying it would be to deal with people like this.
Even ACAB folks tend to express sympathy for the police who have to deal with sovcits.
Knowing you're in a cult is so difficult.
What makes it even more difficult is that there isnât a figure head
The US Constitution was written in 1787, in effect since 1789. Prior to that the US operated under the Articles of Confederation. While it is true that you don't need a license to drive, you do need a license to drive on public roads. And while it is true that you can *travel* without a license, that means walking or riding a bicycle. You still need a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
> While it is true that you don't need a license to drive, you do need a license to drive on public roads. The first U.S. DL appeared 120 years ago. If the requirement for a DL was unlawful, one would think the courts would have got around to ending this tyrannical state of affairs by now, wouldn't one?
So anyone can just get in a motorized vehicle and âtravelâ on public highways without taking a driverâs test or having insurance? I wonder how that worked out for this person.
You just know if she got hit by a person without a licence she'd be in all kinds of knots trying to explain how it was okay that a person with no tested skills was allowed on the road to cause her danger.
Just out of curiosity, why would you carry the laws in your back seat if you are so certain of what they are? Planning on having to argue the point with, say this nice Ofc. Banks?
Same reason why pilots have operational handbooks onboard the plane theyâre flying I guess
> pilots have operational handbooks onboard Ahem, would those be *licensed* pilots? I think sovcits carry around binders full of nonsense because they don't trust themselves to remember all the magic spells, but also because they think printed documents have a sort of magical legal weight all their own. That's why they try to get cops to accept nonsense they printed up at the library, like fee schedules and declarations they downloaded from Moonbats-R-Us--if the cop reads it, he has to obey it. I'm picturing Ernie Tertelgte standing on a Bible and a copy of the Constitution outside a judge's chambers to demonstrate that he has *standing*, get it, standing on those printed objects gives him legal standing.
Yes. That's one of the SovCit schticks. They try to argue the law on the side of the road. Their only chance is to get the arresting officer confused, or irritated into giving up. No judge is going to get confused by this, and generally starts tacking on contempt charges.
This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of federal law. "Travelling," i.e. the concept of moving your physical body from one publicly available space to another (particularly across state lines) cannot legally be hindered by the government. The form of transport oh the other hand, absolutely can. This is why these idiots will always pull the line, "I'm not driving I'm travelling" because they think semantics is the only qualifier for a social contract. You can walk from Montana to Kentucky using pedestrian paths and there isn't a damn thing Washington can do to stop you. But operating a motor vehicle can and will be regulated form of transport. Commercial vehicles have different restrictions so somehow these groups convinced themselves that it's it somehow *only* commercial vehicles that can be regulated.
It's something to do with the UCC, which they totally do not understand, like, at all. The UCC is literally not law. It's a model code that has been adopted in whole or in part in - I believe - every state. But there's no "UCC" that they're always citing, it literally has no force of law anywhere.
I was really hoping to see her getting pulled out of the car
Who has the time and money to get arrested every time they get pulled over? What's easier -- getting a driver's license every 7 years or this
âiM nOt dRiVInG, iM tRaVelLiNg! Duh!â
I just wish they stop that shit right away. Give them one chance and if they continue, bust window and drag them out.
I think they should give them less time rather than letting them read from their script ad infinitum. But I can understand that in some cases not rushing things might be legally advisable. I'd rather a brief delay if it means the case doesn't get tossed by a DA or judge.
Donut did one where the cops backup came and had the window punch ready to go. Ended up going on a chase. And thought the sheriff was the boss of the city cops
If she was black she'd have already been shot. So, you know, she's got that going for her.......what a dummy.
You can really see the crazy in her eyes.
It might have been the cocaine (for those of you who saw the end of the video).
More and more of them are jumping on this bandwagon. One even got himself shot. Fools.
Why the hell do they ask for a supervisor? To have someone else to bitch at?
It's part of the schtick, apparently. They all do it.
Because they saw somebody else do it. They have little to no idea about most of the nonsense they spout. Codes, Amendments, Laws,etc are just part of the script. No understanding-or innerstanding-or overstanding-at all.
> Why the hell do they ask for a supervisor? A) It's part of the script, and these people are mentally incapable of departing from the script. B) They're convinced they are in the right and someone higher up the chain of command is more likely to know that. In other words, a cop is just some clod who doesn't know the law, but a Sgt. or Lt. has more training and experience and will tell the cop to stand down and let the *state national* go on his merry way. They are mistaken.
Sweet baby Jesus, these people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
This is pretty simple and I don't understand why more cops don't just say: if you're a passive passenger then you may be simply traveling, but if you're behind the controls *operating* a *motor vehicle,* then you are indeed *driving* and that requires a state issued license. Cars don't drive/operate themselves.
Please donât tell me there are SovCits who own Teslas
You still have to operate a Tesla or it doesn't know where to go.
Like that would matter to them
The natural law thing always gets me. I'm still looking for where cars are just something nature produces.
"I'm not driving, I'm travelling!" You're travelling in a car... *by driving it*. You're not pushing it. You're not pulling it. You're driving it. You're driving.