I wonder why they are obsessed with all things vehicle. I am pretty sure they could make a big show out of not doing jury duty or not answering the complete census without much happening to them.
I am not from the US, but i would assume sth. like operating an unregistered vehicle, driving w.o. licencse and maybe one violation he got pulled over for in the first place.
What’s the origin of this “traveling doesn’t require a license” thing? Usually the sovereign citizens end up grossly misinterpreting some real statute or law. “Traveling” seems to show up consistently. I’m just curious where it came from.
Also the U.C.C. Sovcits fuckin love the U.C.C. If I had a nickel for every time of them says they’re not engaging in commerce so they’re not required to have a license, I’d be Jeff Bezos.
Well, they may have a point. Was the sovereign citizen travelling on their own road or someone else’s road whom gave them permission to? If so, that’s totally fine and the police officer shouldn’t be policing stuff owned by other people, only the government’s stuff.
Oh, what’s that? It was the government’s stuff? Well, what a surprise. A person using roads that aren’t their’s and are in no position to pay for breaking anything or anyone while on them. It’s like a stranger walking in your house and just using your shit, “It’s okay, I’m a sovereign citizen and the law says I don’t have to follow the law.”
Nah it’s not like that… I can just go into your house because I spell my name with lowercase letters and put a lot of weird semicolons and shit in there. See when I do that it’s just me the person in your house and not the legal entity that the courts think I am that’s there. They’re two separate entities! So legally I’m not in your house.
BTW, you’re out of beer, when are you gonna get some more? I didn’t legally drink your beer, but… you’re out of beer.
I’m imagining a scenario where the driver gets one ticket and becomes irate. The police officer decides to issue another and the cycle continues until the driver shuts up.
Because a private individual will have the resources to take on a police department. As though they wouldn’t defend their officer. How much money do you have for this case? It’s definitely not going to be enough. But I’d love to see it play out.
Sometimes I give them (benign) bogus advice, like to suggest they use a specific kind of postage stamp on their crazy correspondence, which I say is the seal of the great councillor of admiralty and allodial titles.
Use “colloidal”, put some soil science in there, as in “This asphalt road was placed on my soil, restricting its colloidal properties, therefore this asphalt belongs to me and not the state of Insanity.”
This is correct. Lots of farms have children drive trucks around, and places like resorts often have shuttle drivers without CDLs drive their busses, which they could not do on public roads
Depending on the weight of the vehicle and whether or not they have air brakes, you don’t need a CDL. You can rent a 26ft box truck from U-Haul that is almost certainly bigger than most resort buses without a CDL. Even if you’ve only ever driven smart cars before that
Even if you’d normally need a CDL you might not need one on private property. Lots of manufacturing sites have “yard hostlers” that are not road legal and do not require a CDL to operate (in the US).
It’s magical thinking. They believe they found a legal loophole that means they’re obeying the law, because they don’t actually need things like license plates or a drivers license.
For example, they commonly believe that the law actually defines “driving” as a commercial activity, as in “to drive a herd of cattle”. So they insist that they aren’t “driving a motor vehicle”, they’re just “traveling in their conveyance”.
It’s why the poster made a point of saying they were privately traveling.
Add comment