Summary
➡ Carl Miller, a veteran who served in Vietnam, was part of a top-secret project where soldiers were taught about the U.S. Constitution. He has since dedicated his life to teaching others about their constitutional rights and how to defend them in court. He emphasizes the importance of reading and understanding the Constitution, as failing to do so can lead to the loss of rights. He also explains that the Constitution is a legal document, ratified by Congress, and should be enforced as such.
➡ Alice was arrested by Troopers Acevedo and Verdal, who were accused of making an unlawful arrest and violating several laws and rights in the process. The officers forcibly removed Alice from her car, conducted an illegal search, and detained her without legal justification. They also conspired to oppress Alice and intimidate her, breaching her constitutional rights. The officers’ actions were seen as a violation of Alice’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure and her 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
➡ Alice, who was wrongfully stopped and arrested by law enforcement, can seek damages for the violation of her constitutional rights. The officers involved overstepped their authority, leading to a serious breach of Alice’s 4th and 14th amendment rights. Alice can file a lawsuit herself, aiming to hold the officers accountable and push for disciplinary actions against them. This case highlights the importance of understanding and asserting one’s rights, and the crucial role of the jury in upholding justice.
➡ The text discusses the belief that liberty and a Christian population are interconnected. It explains that the concept of separation of church and state, often associated with the First Amendment, is not explicitly in the US Constitution but was introduced later. The text also highlights that the Founding Fathers did not intend for a state-run religion, but they did incorporate Christian principles, such as the Ten Commandments, into the country’s moral foundation. Lastly, it suggests that returning to these Christian roots could be beneficial for America’s future.
➡ This text emphasizes the importance of understanding and reading legal cases before using them in court. It highlights a key case in U.S. history, where it was ruled that any law conflicting with the supreme law is null and void. The text also discusses the concept of willfulness in legal terms and the difference between conventional and common law. It suggests that by default, everyone consents to conventional law, and understanding one’s rights can limit the authority of law or officials over an individual.
➡ The text discusses the difference between “driving” and “traveling” in legal terms. It explains that when you register your mode of transport as a “vehicle,” you’re voluntarily transferring ownership to the state, which subjects you to certain laws and regulations. However, if you claim to be “traveling” in your personal property, you’re asserting your right to move freely, which is protected by the Constitution. The text also touches on the concept of “sovereign citizens,” individuals who reject conventional law and assert their inherent rights, which can lead to conflicts with law enforcement.
➡ This article discusses a document that labels individuals who declare their independence from the U.S. government as “sovereign citizens” and potential criminals. These individuals often engage in fraudulent activities and do not adhere to federal, state, or local laws. The article also highlights the role of sheriffs and police officers in law enforcement, and the growing distrust of the U.S. government among Americans. It further explores the controversial belief that the U.S. tax system is voluntary, with some officials seemingly supporting this view.
➡ A former IRS agent, Sherry Peele Jackson, was sentenced to four years in prison for not filing income tax returns, showing that the government takes tax evasion seriously. Another former agent, Thomas Selgas, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and had to pay over a million dollars for tax evasion and defrauding the U.S. Despite claims that income tax laws don’t apply to average American citizens, these cases show that the law does enforce tax obligations. Lastly, former IRS agent Joe Bannister claims to have found evidence in the IRS’s own law library that suggests their jurisdiction is limited to Americans living and working abroad, but this claim hasn’t been legally validated.
➡ The U.S. government’s shift from the gold standard led to the perception of U.S. currency as valueless credit notes, sparking the rise of sovereign citizens who challenge the monetary system and government authority. These individuals often seek legal remedies for perceived violations of their rights and may engage in fraudulent activities. The government labels these actions as potentially criminal, causing confusion and discouraging citizens from asserting their rights. This situation has led to debates about the government’s intentions and the need for better civics education.
➡ Alice was pulled over by Trooper Verdal for not having an inspection sticker on her car. She questioned the officer multiple times about whether she had committed a crime, asserting her right to travel in her personal property. Despite her refusal to answer questions, the officer did not let her go, potentially infringing upon her constitutional rights. The incident raises questions about the legality of the stop and the officer’s conduct, as Alice’s refusal to answer questions should not have been used to infer suspicion of criminal activity.
➡ Alice was pursued by Trooper Verdahl without a valid reason, violating her rights and misusing police equipment. Trooper Verdahl wrongly assumed Alice was a “sovereign citizen” without any concrete evidence. This led to a dangerous chase, which ended with Police Chief Williams threatening Alice and violating her constitutional rights. The officers’ actions were not justified, as Alice had not committed any crime, leading to a call for the case’s dismissal.
➡ Alice was stopped by Police Chief Williams and Trooper Verdahl for not having an inspection sticker on her vehicle. Despite Alice’s calm assertion of her rights, the officers became agitated and detained her, citing “failure to ID” as the offense. Alice argued that she had a constitutional right to travel and had not committed a crime, but the officers dismissed her claims, threatened her with additional charges, and eventually arrested her for eluding a police officer. This incident raises concerns about the officers’ respect for citizens’ rights and their understanding of the law.
Transcript
One notable and seemingly trustworthy individual is General Carl Miller, from whom Alice reportedly obtained her information. General Miller is renowned for possibly influencing a global awakening towards individual empowerment. General Carl Miller served honorably in the United States Air force for over 27 years as a decorated combat pilot. This included multiple critical missions in which many of his brothers at arms perished in his company. Sadly, General Miller passed away in 2022. The only insight into Alice’s motives is a 1995 video detailing the roots of her beliefs. We invite you to learn about Brigadier General Carl Miller, a true patriot who dedicated his life to fighting for freedom.
You will have the opportunity to determine whether he represents a credible source or if Alice has been misled into her legal predicament. Please note that the following information is crucial in understanding Alice’s reasoning, motivation, and overall thought process when performing her actions in this case. Brigadier General Carl Miller was commander of the 21st North American Air Defense Command Region with additional duty as Commander, 21st Air Division, Aerospace Defense Command at Hancock Field, New York. He was responsible for operations at Hancock Field, nine radar sites in the Northeast, and two units in green. General Miller was born in 1930 in Birmingham, Alabama, where he graduated from high school in 1948.
He graduated from the University of Alabama in 1951 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. He went on to earn a Doctorate of Jurisprudence in 1961 from St. Mary’s University Law School in San Antonio, Texas. General Miller completed Air Command and Staff College in 1962 and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1970. He enlisted in the US Air Force in June 1951. After completing basic training, he entered pilot training at Bartow Air Base, Fla. As an aviation cadet. In September 1952, he earned his pilot wings and was commissioned as a second lieutenant.
He then completed F84 combat crew training at Luke Air Force Base. In January 1953, General Miller was assigned to the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing at Gunsan Air Base, Korea, and became operations officer of the 430th Tactical Fighter Wing. In May 1953. He flew 57 combat missions during the Korean War. In December 1953, General Miller was assigned to Air Training Command and served with the 3645th Combat Crew Training Wing at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, as a fighter gunnery instructor in the F84. In the AT33, he later served as a standardization evaluation pilot and became assistant group operations officer.
In February 1957, he was transferred to Hondo Air Base, Texas, a civilian contract pilot training school, where he served as military training officer for an aviation cadet squadron. In March 1958, he was transferred to Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, where he served as chief of the T33 standardization board and as assistant deputy for operations of the 3510th Flying Training Wing. In August 1961, he entered the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell air Force Base, Alabama. Upon completion of his studies at Maxwell, General Miller joined Headquarters, 4th Allied Tactical Air Force, a NATO military organization, at Ramstein Air base, Germany.
In June 1962, he served as executive officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff for operations. In July 1966, he was assigned to the 31st Tactical Fighter Wing at Homestead Air Force Base, Fla. The 31st Wing deployed to Tui Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, in December 1966. While there, he served as chief of the Operations and Training division and flew two 78 combat missions in the F100. General Miller returned to Ramstein in January 1968 to serve as Assistant Director of Tactical Evaluation and later as Assistant Director of Air Control Systems with Headquarters, 17th Air Force. In July 1969, he entered the Industrial College of the Armed forces in Washington, D.C.
in July 1970, he was assigned as the director of Operations for the 57th Fighter Weapons Wing and as the commandant of the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis Air Force base, Nevora. In September 1971, General Miller returned to Southwest Asia as vice commander of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubun Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. He became commander of the wing in February 1972. While commanding the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, he led F4 strike missions in Operation Linebacker over North Vietnam and flew 189 combat missions in the F4. General Miller joined Allied Air Forces Southern Europe Airsouth, a NATO military headquarters in Naples and Italy, in January 1973.
He was initially assigned as chief of the Tactical Evaluation section. Then in June 1973, he became deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for operations in AirSouth. General Miller’s next assignment was Deputy Commander, 5th Allied Tactical Air Force, NATO in Vicenza, Italy, in January 1974. He became Commander for two consecutive years of Civil Air Patrol, US Air Force, at Maxwell Air Force Base in August 1975. In November 1977, General Miller was assigned to Hancock Field as commander of the 21st NORAD region, with additional duty as commander, 21st Air Division. During the Korean War and his two tours of duty in Southeast Asia, General Miller completed 524 combat missions.
His military decorations include the Silver Star with oak leaf cluster, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Distinguished Flying Cross with eight oak leaf clusters, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, air medal with 29 oak leaf clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Air Service Medal, Honor Class. He was promoted to the grade of Brigadier General November 1, 1973. Upon retiring at the age of 48 in 1979, after over 27 years of distinguished service, Carl S. Miller continued his dedication by supporting the Civil Air Patrol at Maxwell Air Force Base.
He pursued his profound passion for the Constitution, a testament to the very values for which so many of his fellow soldiers gave their lives. Since then, he has thrived in numerous courtroom victories, empowering countless Americans with the skills to represent themselves confidently in a court of law. Through his guidance, citizens have rediscovered their inherent power, reclaiming rights that were diminished through the negligence stemming from a lack of understanding and awareness. On November 7, 2022, the World Bid farewell to a valiant war hero, Brigadier General Carl Miller, who passed away at the age of 92. His life, rich with honor and service, leaves behind a legacy of valor and dedication that will echo through the corridors of history.
Good evening, folks. I want to thank you for inviting me into your home tonight to talk to you about an extremely important issue to you. I’m here to talk about the United States Constitution and our government and some of the principles that you need to understand most thoroughly so that you can have an effective opportunity to exercise your constitutional rights. The whole purpose of this is that you understand that these rights come from God, okay? That they are God inspired. God is the one who endowed us with these rights and that this Constitution merely offers a legitimate program to protect those rights or to secure those rights and the blessings of those rights on ourselves and on our children for all time.
It’s important that you understand that the Constitution is God inspired. It’s important that you understand that a lot of the principles that are in the Constitution actually come out of the Holy Bible. Okay? And it’s very important that you understand that these Constitution allows each of you each to be a king or queen in your own right, as long as you recognize one principle, that you don’t ever create a situation where you take away the rights of another. So the whole point of having the Constitution is so that all of us can have the rights equally.
And as long as we respect our neighbor and allow them also to have the rights equally, the protections are going to last forever. We are going to get thoroughly into your Constitution. We want you to find a Constitution wherever you can. And we are going to basically take you step by step through some of the most important parts of this Constitution so that you can better exercise your rights in a timely fashion. Now, the facts are simple. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any rights. And that’s just the way it is. And if you certainly couldn’t exercise those rights timely if you don’t know what they are.
So what’s going to happen is they’re going to tell you what your rights are. And do you think they’re going to tell you in your favor? Certainly not. We’ve come a long way to put this program on to help you. By the way, my name is Carl Miller. I want to thank you again for inviting me into your home. We’re going to proceed with vigor. I should tell you a few things about me, that I’m a prior service soldier. I serve three combat tours, Republic of Vietnam. I should tell you that I was a participant in the top secret project called Blue Book where the officers in the jungle smelled a rat in a wood pile and they decided to pull their top soldiers aside and they come on over here, come on over here, we want to talk to you.
And they took their top soldiers in the corner and they started teaching them things like duty, honor, country, pride in the Corps. They taught us history, they taught us all kind of programming as far as what’s going on in our government. They taught us the Constitution. We had to be able to rattle the Constitution off just like we would any manual of arms. And this all took place totally top secret so that we wouldn’t offend any chains of command or any presidential problems similar to what happened between General MacArthur. The bottom line is this was taken totally upon their own, shall we say, careers to pull this thing off.
And they this happened all throughout a lot of the military services in Vietnam. Marine Corps, Air Force, army we all. They all pulled aside their best people and they started putting everything on and teaching us our Constitution. So I’m going to try and still in you that flame that was instilled in me over 25 years ago in which I have been. I have been transferring ever since. I have been fighting tooth and nail to defend the Constitution. I have helped thousands and thousands and thousands of other people do the same. I teach people how to be their own counsel, to stand up in courts of law and be able to exercise their constitutional rights in a timely and effective manner.
And the good Lord willing, I’ll be able to keep doing that. So why don’t we right now try and get into some parts of the Constitution. The most important thing that I can teach you about this Constitution is the importance of reading it. You must read the Constitution and understand what physically is involved. You must know your rights and timely assert them. That is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called latches incurs. Latches is a legal term which is defined as an as. Laches is a specie of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity having a right to take an action as is prescribed by law, and having failed to timely do so, loses all right to proceed.
So what is actually happening out there, folks, is that latches is incurring because most people don’t read their Constitution and know what’s involved. So then you are left to being told, well, that’s what it means, okay? So you just gotta do what you gotta do and you’re told. And they’re gonna tell you in favor of them. They’re not gonna tell you in favor of you. So it’s better for you to read the book and understand what’s in it. It’s not a very big book. I highly recommend the book. You can get several versions. A lot of times you contact your congressman.
My congressman, Dominic Vicentini, state senator, supplied this one for me. John Kuhn, a Libertarian candidate, has supplied several. Also some of these folks, just check with your local congressman or state rep. A lot of times they’ll just give you one. If you cannot find one, go down to your United States government building here in the Detroit vicinity. It’s called the McNamara Building on the first floor. And what we do then is we go into the Government Printing Office. And usually they’re about a buck, but I highly recommend you go get one. I don’t leave home without mine.
I usually have three or four of them someplace and I hand them out also myself. I give them out to Whoever. I. I think one of the most kindest things I can do to a person is give them this book and show them how it works. This book is kind of like a genie in a bottle. If you know how to stroke this book, I’m telling you the genie comes out and it usually with a force that you will be clearly recognized in any court in the land. Now, that doesn’t mean it’ll be easy. You might have to work a little bit.
But basically there’s an argument and it comes like this. If I violate your rights, you may or may not know about it. If you know about it, you may or may not be able to do something about it. If you do have an ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to go to a finished program. If you do have the financial wherewithal, you may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to a finished program. So most of the time your governments and your abusive personalities in government or your corporations pretty much have carte blanche to injure you.
Because in 99.9% of the cases, most people will not proceed. But every now and then you run into that one hard nut and he doesn’t quit or she doesn’t quit till the cows come home. And what happens is that person will prevail. And those are the people that are actually generating better protections and better constitutional rights for you. Those are the ones that are going to the supreme courts and the courts of appeals and what have you that are pushing, that are spending their life funds to allow you to have the benefit. But if you aren’t there to catch the benefit, then the benefit is lost.
So we’re going to get right into the Constitution. We’re going to teach you some things about it. Pay attention because we’re really doing this out of an act of love for you. And we’re hoping to God you’re going to pick up on it and pay attention. Okay? Now I’m going to put one Constitution down here so the folks can see it. I will open this up from time to time to demonstrate things to you will basically try and read out of another Constitution so that we can better show you some of the things that are involved.
Now, it’s important that you understand that this Constitution is in writing. It’s important that you understand that it is a legal document, okay? That it was ratified by all of the members in a Congress together. Right? That that document can be. You can get all the signatures on the document, okay? And it’s Important that you understand that there was an offer government offered to govern. There was a consideration. The citizens considered how they were going to be governed. And government promised that they would govern by Constitution. And there was an agreement. The citizens agreed that if government promised there would be a government by Constitution, that they would agree to allow the Constitution into force.
Now, there’s a unique situation here. It’s very rare when you find the party of the first part, which is the congressman, officers of the government who are also parties of the second part, as representatives of we the people of republic. And when they sign the document, they sign the document as officers of government agreeing to the Constitution and simultaneously as officers of representatives of the people in the republican form of government. And when they signed that document that constituted a ironclad contract in writing enforceable in a court of law pursuant to the statute of frauds here in the state of Michigan.
That’s 566.132 Michigan Compiled Laws act, which basically states anything in writing is enforceable in the court of law pursuant to the statute of frauds. Now, all we’re asking is that they enforce the contract. We want them to enforce the contract. In other words, if we read something in here and we got a good reason for why we believe it’s the way it is, then they should honor that. And they should honor it in favor of you, the Clery intended and expressly designated beneficiary. But I’ll get into that a little later. Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
This is called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It’s located at Article 6. Everybody see that paragraph two, which is going to start right here, and I’m going to read it to you, okay? And basically what it says is this, this Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the Constitution or laws of any state through the contrary are notwithstanding.
When they say notwithstanding, that means notwithstanding in law. That means. That’s a legal definition. Notwithstanding means not withstanding in law. Now, a very important case, Marbury versus Madison, 5 U.S. 137. It’s recorded at volume five, right here. It’s an 1803 case, Marbury versus Madison. It’s recorded in volume five, page 137. Now, basically, what this case states, and I’m telling you right now, if you want to use a case to Cite for any purpose in court, you have to read the case. If you haven’t read the case, you haven’t read the case and formed a basis upon which a logical determination in your mind could have been reached to form an opinion as to why you should do what you’re going to do, then the judge will throw your case out.
So read your cases. Don’t just quote cases, because you won’t win. If the judge ever pins you down and starts asking you some merits of the case and you can’t even understand what the case is about, nine times out of ten, he’s just going to throw your case in the can. So make sure you read the case. This is one of the leading cases in the history of the United States of America. The opinion of the court was given by the Honorable Judge John Marshall, Chief justice of the Supreme Court. His opinion was, anything that is in conflict is null and void of law.
Clearly, he said that for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical or certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law. And certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce it would bear no obligation to obey. It would purport to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law.
No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law. Now, let me give you an example in today’s timing as to how effective this is. This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady bill, it nullifies the Crime bill. It takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn into 159 weapons. It stops this 666 bill that just went through that they’re trying to take away the Fourth Amendment, you see, because they have no power to pass a law that’s in conflict with the United States Constitution.
And it’s automatically null and void of law from its inception, not from the date you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional. Now, I want to get that real clear. A lot of people think that they gotta go to court and brand it unconstitutional. I’m here to tell you if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time you will win. Every now and then you run into a hard nose. But I’ll show you how to deal with him too. Okay, but for now, I want everybody that’s got a chance to go out to learn your Constitution, your Article 6, paragraph 2 of your Constitution.
I want you to pay attention to what’s going on here. Learn to read about this Marbury vs Madison case. And I always take my harmonica and I give them hell. Give him the we give it to him in his video, accessible@honorcarlmiller.com General Miller delves deeply into legal concepts, highlighting what he refers to as the supreme law of the land or common law. He emphasizes that the government won’t readily inform you about these laws in a way that favors individuals. Given his respected background, I find his viewpoints persuasive to say the least. Let’s break down the legal argument used by General Miller and Alice in a straightforward manner so everyone can grasp the essence of her case.
Alice’s arguments rely on definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, a series of authoritative legal books. Understanding her right shifts her into a different legal realm beyond the typical reach of officials such as police officers. Contrasting with conventional Law as it’s broadly understood, for Alice to be prosecuted, it must be proven that she acted with willfulness. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition 1999, willfulness is defined as voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious. Thus, to establish a crime, it must be shown that Alice knowingly committed an action she understood to be a crime which involves proving willfulness.
Now let’s explore how Alice was legally exercising her rights, removing her from conventional laws jurisdiction and thereby limiting the authority of any law or official as long as she did not infringe on another American’s rights. Conventional law, unlike common law, is defined as quote, a rule or system of rules agreed on by persons for the regulation of their conduct toward one another. Law constituted by agreement as having the force of special law between the parties by either supplementing or replacing the general law of the land. Examples include international treaties as well as the rules of clubs or games.
Said in simpler terms, you must consent to conventional law for it to apply to you. However, due to the principle of latches, which generally implies a delay or negligence in asserting a legal right, people are considered to have consented to conventional law by default. The term latches is defined as unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a right or claim, almost always an equitable one in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought or the equitable doctrine by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting the claim.
Additionally, consider the concept of estoppel, which means a legal barrier preventing someone from asserting a claim or right that contradicts previous statements or actions or what has been legally established as as true. Together, estoppel by latches refers to, quote, an equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. When put in simpler terms, these definitions suggest that by default, everyone in America consents to conventional law because they do not take the necessary steps to understand their right. Consequently, when you sign up for a driver’s license and register your motor vehicle, you are subject to latches because you are either 1 unaware of your rights or 2 offering your consent to governmental authority and jurisdiction over you.
A driver’s license is defined as, quote, the state issued certificate authorizing a person to operate a motor vehicle. The legal term person is defined as 1 a human being 2 an entity such as a corporation that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human human being and lastly three the living body of a human being. Example contraband found on the smuggler’s person. Now, the term artificial person is defined as, quote, an entity such as a corporation created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being, a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being, also termed fictitious person, juristic person, legal person, or moral person.
In contrast, a natural person is a human being as distinguished from an artificial person created by law. When referencing the definition of a legal person, it refers back to artificial person. Therefore, in the definition of a driver’s license, when it authorizes a person to operate a motor vehicle, it could refer to either one a artificial human being. And remember, artificial human is defined as a being real or imaginary, potentially being a real human being, or it’s referencing to a real human being defined as a natural person. If I had a license, that would be allowing a straw man to take precedence over the fact that I’m here and alive and traveling in my personal property.
Gotcha. I would be allowing myself to be under your authority, and I am not. I am under my authority and God’s authority, and I have never agreed to subject myself to your authority. When Alice states, quote, if I had a license, then that would be allowing a straw man to take precedence over the fact that I’m Here and alive and traveling in my personal property. She is emphasizing her existence as a natural person. In this context, the term straw man refers to an artificial person which individuals unaware of their rights might be deemed by default. Upon deeper examination, one might argue that such licenses or contracts aren’t valid in the first place due to the lack of awareness that exists about their implication.
A contract is only valid if all parties are aware of its terms, which is common knowledge in the legal world. Therefore, signing a license and registering a vehicle without full knowledge of these terms suggests unawareness, as it seems illogical to pay for a process that may infringe on one’s privacy. Essentially, it becomes evident to anyone knowledgeable about their rights. When an officer alleges that you have committed a violation, it is important to note that this is not the same as being accused of committing a crime. Just stay in the car for me, okay? No, stay in the car for me.
I’ve committed a crime. You have no right. I’ve already explained it all to you. Just stay in the car for me. I’ll be. You’re not leaving. Sorry. She’s trying to leave. Yeah, she’s. She’s trying to take off right now. She’s. She just took off. She’s leaving. Yep, I’m right behind her. You don’t have an inspection sticker, so I stopped you. It doesn’t matter if it’s your personal property. You do need an inspection sticker, okay? According to Title 23 under the State of Vermont law, which I explained also earlier, the term violation is defined as 1. An infraction or breach of law, a transgression.
2. The act of breaking or dishonoring the law or the contravention of a right or duty. 3. Under the Model Penal Code, a public welfare offense. Quote. In this sense, a violation is not a crime. See Model penal code, section 1.045, as highlighted in Black’s Law dictionary, a violation is not a crime. In contrast, the term crime is defined as a social harm that the law deems punishable the breach of a legal duty that is the focus of a criminal proceeding, also known as a criminal wrong. The frequent mention of law in these definitions might seem confusing.
So which law are we talking about? In cases involving Alice or a living individual, the focus is on God’s law or the law of the land, often referred to as common law. When Alice says, I don’t consent, she is simply removing herself from what some refer to as commerce, which Black’s Law defines as conventional law. Conventional law includes policies that apply primarily to those who may not fully understand their right. Typically, with deeper understanding, one might align with God’s law as a living soul, which transcends even the Constitution. When Alice asserts that she is not driving a vehicle despite appearances suggesting otherwise and traveling to my personal property.
Gotcha. The specific language being used is crucial to understand the term vehicle, as in motor vehicle is defined as something used as an instrument or conveyance or any conveyance for transporting passengers or goods by land, water, or air. And shockingly, conveyance is defined as, quote the voluntary transfer of a right or property. This implies that a vehicle is something created when you voluntarily transfer ownership of your property property to the state. Most people unknowingly do this when they register their mode of transport as a vehicle. So when Alice claims she was traveling, not driving, this distinction becomes clearer with a few additional definitions and Traveling in my personal property According to Black’s Law Dictionary, seventh edition, a driver is 1 a person who steers and propels a vehicle or 2 a person who herds animals or a drover.
And importantly, driving is defined as the act of directing the course of something like an automobile or a herd of animals driving at home. The automobile exception is defined as an exemption from the requirement of a search warrant, allowing police to search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Therefore, you are only driving when you are in property you have voluntarily transferred to the state designated as a vehicle. Additionally, if you claim to be in an automobile, it is also defined as a vehicle.
Conversely, a traveler is defined as a person who moves from place to place for any reason. Understanding these definitions clarifies why one might identify as traveling instead of driving should they choose not to consent to the conventional legal framework that governs vehicles. Understand that traveling is a fundamental right protected by the concept Constitution. Particularly under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to travel as a fundamental constitutional right, as seen in landmark cases like Marbury vs Madison and Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham. In contrast, driving is considered a privilege governed by state regulation and subject to specific conditions and restrictions.
Driving is viewed as a commercial activity under Title 18, Section 31 of the US Code. In Alice’s situation, she was not engaged in commercial activity but was merely exercising her right to travel. She was not operating a motor vehicle as defined by Title 18, Section 31, but was using private property, which is not bound by the same regulations and restrictions as a motor vehicle and traveling in my personal property. Gotcha. Stepping outside of conventional law places you firmly in what is known as the private domain. In this context, you don’t drive vehicles. Instead you travel with your personal property.
And property is defined as quote 1 the right to possess, use and enjoy a determinate thing, either a tract of land or a chattel and also the right of ownership, the institution of private property is protected from undue governmental interference or two any external thing over which the rights of possession, use and enjoyment are exercised. And for context, privacy law refers to a federal or state statute that safeguards an individual’s right to be left alone or limits public access to personal information like tax returns and medical records. Also known as the Privacy Act. Private is defined as, quote, relating or belonging to an individual as opposed to the public or the government, confidential or secret.
By removing oneself from conventional law, one remains the private domain. Your vehicle, belongings, home and other possessions are classified as private. And as long as you don’t infringe on others rights, they are protected from government interference. When exercising your rights, you transition from conventional law into common law. A notable advantage of this transition is retaining the ability to use conventional law against government officials like police officers or other individuals who may be unaware of the their rights, placing them under conventional law jurisdiction. With this understanding, it’s clear why hiring an attorney can contradict asserting your rights leading to latches.
Legal representatives typically advise pleading not guilty in waiting for a plea deal instead of immediately seeking a jury trial. Representing yourself pro se suggests a readiness to invoke your right to a speedy trial, thereby avoiding the implication of latches which arise rises. If you demonstrate ignorance of your rights, Much like Neo in the Matrix, you must be wholly prepared to take the leap. If you’re not ready to fully commit, it’s wise to wait until you are inadvertently gotten a sassy answer to that question from attorney Mark Koplik. In its hidden camera video, Koplik explained to the representative of the phony African minister why he never worried about government subpoenas.
They don’t send the lawyers to jail because we run the country. Do you run the country? Still do. I love it. Still do, I should say. Some lawyers run the country. So you are. You are some of them? Two of them, Yeah, a small amount. We’re still members of a privileged class. So how. What does it mean? You run the country means you. We make the laws and when we do so, we make them in a way that is advantageous to the lawyers. Yeah, she’s pulling like the sovereign citizen thing. Like have I committed a crime? I’m on.
I’m a Traveler on this roadway. Yeah. So, okay, she’s looking all that. No, Sarge. Right. I don’t think she’s DUI or anything. She’s being very like sovereign citizen. Like I’m traveling on the road, I don’t need to identify myself and so forth. No, she’s just sovereign. Seriously, I’m assuming. Oh yeah, I get the straw man stuff. I get all that stuff. I just need your id. You apparently are the strong man or the straw man. Straw man. Straw man. No, no, no. This is funny because we were just talking about sovereign sisters the other day and how we never really dealt with one and now.
There you go. What’s a straw man? The straw man is what was created with the whole license piece. Gotcha. What exactly is a sovereign citizen? From the perspective of someone who has studied this topic extensively, the term appears to be a form of psychological manipulation. It is akin to removing civics classes which taught the Constitution from schools, and replacing them with the generic social studies classes which some say was more of an indoctrination rather than education. The term sovereign citizen itself is an oxymoron, meaning it’s a contradiction. According to the well respected Black’s Law Dictionary, seventh Edition, being sovereign means one possesses independent and supreme authority or is the ruler of an independent state.
In contrast, a citizen is defined as, quote, a person who by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community owing allegiance to the community. Thus, one cannot be both sovereign and a citizen at the same time. The usage of sovereign citizen may serve as a technique to control Americans who might have largely forgotten about their inherent rights and the power of the Constitution. In 2010, the United States government, through the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit, released a document marked Law Enforcement Sensitive titled Sovereign Citizens An Introduction for Law Enforcement. This document has since been made public and provides some shocking details surrounding sovereign citizens and law enforcement.
It provides an overview of the behaviors and indicators of individuals identified as sovereign citizens, labeling them as a type of criminal which serves as the basis of what law enforcement used to categorize such individuals based on their observations observed actions. The document states, quote, the purpose of this primer is to assist law enforcement in the identification of sovereign citizen extremist activity to prevent, detect and or deter acts associated with sovereign citizen criminal activity, further stating, quote, in this report, sovereign citizen is used to reference individuals who declare their sovereignty from the United States by overtly filing fraudulent documents or committing other criminal activity.
The document goes on to characterize certain actions specifying, quote, sovereign citizens have committed the following felonious attacks on police officers, filing liens and making threats against federal officers bank mail, wire and mortgage fraud conspiracy creating fictitious obligations using coinage that imitates official currency, passing or issuing silver or gold coins, money laundering, tax violations and even illegal possession or sale of firearms. Additionally, the document states that, quote, sovereign citizens are known for traveling across the country, conducting seminars on debt elimination schemes and routinely engaging in financial crimes such as mortgage and credit card fraud. They may also create fraud, fraudulent businesses, even while incarcerated to secure credit from legitimate banks.
This document appears to aim at classifying those who assert certain rights and attempt to operate outside traditional legal structures as criminals. It notes, quote, these groups generally do not adhere to federal, state or local laws. Some sovereign citizens believe federal and state officials have no real authority and will only recognize the local sheriff’s department as legitimate governmental authority. We should keep in mind a sheriff and a police officer both work in law enforcement but have different levels of authority. First, let’s go over sheriffs. As an elected official, sheriffs oversee law enforcement across an entire county. Their duties include managing county jails, serving legal documents, and ensuring court security.
Sheriffs have jurisdiction throughout the county, including areas not covered by municipal police forces. If police officers commit a crime, it falls under the sheriff’s responsibility to investigate and potentially arrest them. Additionally, sheriffs even have the authority to deputize citizens he deems fit, empowering them to assist with law enforcement, while in contrast, police hired by a city or town police officers focus on enforcing laws within their municipal boundaries, handling tasks tasks such as responding to emergencies and conducting criminal investigations within city limits. In terms of governmental authority, sheriffs can assert their power over federal directives, including presidential executive orders, if they believe those directives infringe upon county sovereignty or local laws.
This positions sheriffs as a significant line of defense in preserving the rights and freedoms of Americans, especially in scenarios scenarios where government corruption might undermine legal and civil liberties. In 2022, Joe Davidson from the Washington Post cited the Pew Research center noting that 80% of Americans did not trust the United states government. By 2023, this figure had risen to 84%, according to Pew Research center data. In Contrast, back in 2010, when this document was released, only 19% of Americans reported trust in the US government. The document seemed to label a significant portion of Americans, 82%, as potential criminals simply because they distrusted the government, stating, quote, sovereign citizens believe the United States government is illegitimate and has drifted away from the true intent of the Constitution.
As a result, the United States government is not perceived to be acting in the interest of the American people. The document mentions that indicators of someone identified as a sovereign citizen included writing their name in all capital letters, notarizing documents, writing their name formatted with their last name in front of their first name, signing with sls meaning Sovereign Living Soul, and even enclosing zip codes and brackets. There’s a belief among some that individuals like former President Trump haven’t disclosed their taxes because they haven’t filed them, possibly viewing taxes as voluntary. This document appears to label Americans who question the legitimacy of taxes as criminals, stating, quote, individuals who adhere to this ideology believe their status as a sovereign citizen exempts them from U.S.
laws and the U.S. tax system. They believe the U.S. federal Reserve system, the Treasury Department and banking systems are illegitimate. Therefore, one of the perceived benefits of being a sovereign citizen is not paying federal or state taxes. Interestingly, there’s a more official take on taxes being voluntary from the government itself. In 2013, California Representative Xavier Becerra referred to the tax system as voluntary. During a May 17 hearing with the U.S. house of Representatives, Becerra stated, quote, we have to maintain confidence because it’s a voluntary tax system. The Acting Commissioner of the irs, Steve Miller, responded, quote, agreed, end quote.
Basura reiterated, we need to clean up and clear out so we can make sure people respect that we have a voluntary system of paying taxes, end quote. Although brief and somewhat vague, these exchanges suggest a government level acknowledgement that aligns with claims about the nature of the tax system. Some see this as an example of government maintaining plausible deniability. It raises the idea that Basura might be subtly hinting at a deeper truth. The context was a hearing on the IRS targeting conservative groups, adding a layer of complexity when compared to labels like sovereign citizens. This government terminology equates to criminalizing actions when citizens assert their rights.
The US Government educates law enforcement to view legitimate rights assertions as potentially criminal. It suggests the government might be trying to suppress the rights of Americans, echoing a metaphorical Stockholm Syndrome type of legal restraint system for those who haven’t had the chance or taken the time to see through it, consider looking up the definition of treason in your Constitution, United States Code, and Black’s Law dictionary the next time you’re doing research. Furthermore, it’s perplexing when government rhetoric on the legitimacy of certain mechanisms contradicts occasional admissions by officials. Hearing these statements directly from officials can provide important context and clarity.
Here’s a short clip of their two minute interaction during the IRS hearing on targeting Americans, noting Basura’s difficulty with his words and the IRS commissioner’s readiness to agree. I think the President actually said it better. He said that the handling of those tax exempt applications in that process at the IRS was outrageous and intolerable. No excuse. And as much as we know that the folks at IRS have a thankless job because they have to go and tell their fellow Americans that they may be audited or they have to do this work understaffed, we have to maintain the confidence in the system.
Because it’s a voluntary system of payment of our tax. Agreed. Because it’s a voluntary system of payment of our taxes. Agreed. And so you are right. It was a foolish mistake, but the President’s even more correct that it was outrageous and intolerable. Now, let me also focus on something. Mr. George. You said when you were asked, was there any finding or evidence of political motivation here, you said, no. That’s correct, sir. Okay. And so what we find is a situation where inexcusable activity took place because it erodes the confidence of the American people in a system where they participate voluntarily.
And if there’s a place in public service where you have to have the highest level of conduct and standards, it’s at the IRS. And so, Mr. Miller, I think it’s unfortunate for those who are in positions of authority, but the buck has to stop somewhere. And I think that’s exactly, exactly what we’re saying. That should not diminish the good work that has been done by anyone within the IRS over the years. And so I hope you understand that you are here today talking to us because we need to get to the bottom of this. We need to clean up and clear out so we can go back to the business of making sure that people respect the fact that we have a voluntary system of paying our taxes.
Making sure that people respect the fact that we have a voluntary system of paying our taxes. It’s crucial, if ever, reaching jury trial for anything related to sovereign citizens, like in Alice’s case, to make sure you one, reject all jury participants without sufficient intellect and vet them by doing things like asking them vocabulary questions. And two, educate the jury to the best of your ability. Because all of this knowledge is literally the opposite of common sense. While this may sound far fetched, there are accounts from former IRS agents who resigned after discovering what they believe to be the truth about the tax system.
There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law. I really expected that of Course, there’s a law that you can point to in the law book, the code that requires you to file a tax return. Of course there is. Maybe I don’t know what it is right then as we, as he was speaking to me. But sure, so naively I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him.
Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn’t find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and most people I know. And I had no choice in my mind except to resign. We the People foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in the USA today on July 7, 2000. And within the body of that ad was a fifty thousand dollar challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let’s put this baby to bed.
I’m hearing all these rumors, you know, I’m going to kill two birds with one stone. I’ll answer these people’s questions that are asking me and then I win this $50,000. And you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I’m still doing, I have not found that law. I’ve asked Congress, we’ve asked a lot of people in the irs, IRS commissioners, helpers, they can’t answer because if they answer, the American people are going to know that this whole thing is a fraud. In 2008, former IRS agent Sherry Peele Jackson had the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit uphold the district court’s decision to impose a four year prison sentence for failing to file income tax returns.
As the evidence clearly demonstrated her willful non compliance. A key component in tax defiance cases is the element of willfulness. To establish willfulness, the government must prove prove that the defendant acted with an intentional disregard for the legal duty to file tax returns. In Jackson’s case, despite her claims of misunderstanding certain tax terms, the court found substantial evidence showing that she knowingly and intentionally failed to file her tax returns while maintaining a tax preparation business. Her own statements and the significant income she received reinforced this finding, indicating a conscious choice to violate the law within conventional law jurisdiction.
She did not adequately explain the complexities of these issues to the jury. Just because someone is an IRS or other government official doesn’t mean they are a legal expert. Gaining expertise in law requires significant time and dedication. Time that she likely didn’t have due to her busy schedule. Therefore, always ensure you have sufficient knowledge before trying to change jurisdictions. There is no law. To date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax. In 2008, former IRS agent Thomas Selgas was sentenced to 18 months in prison, served three years of supervised release following his imprisonment, and to pay approximately 1,323,700 in restitution to the United States.
He was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and for tax evasion. When reviewing the case, it’s clear to see that by engaging an attorney, former IRS agent Tom Selgas placed himself within the realm of conventional law jurisdiction. Legal representation inherently involves acceptance of judicial processes and acknowledgment of statute based obligations. This belies any argument that Celgas might have been outside such legal frameworks or operating under common law principles independent of statutory tax obligations. His deliberate interactions with the attorney aimed at concealing income revealed an active participation in conventional legal avenues, albeit for illicit purposes.
Selgas also failed to sufficiently educate the jury. The jury was presented with tangible proof of conspiracy to defraud via the jurisdiction of conventional law, notably the use of an attorney’s escrow account to conceal substantial income from the irs. This evidence suggested intentional malpractice rather than innocence or error. To present a sufficient case, Celgas would have needed a narrative that either justified the use of such concealed transactions or disproved the notion of willful tax evasion, neither of which appeared appeared convincing. What a party has acquired in terms of evidence means everything. It’s always best to proceed like you’re in a courtroom battle, using your notepad and pen as if it could draw you an entirely new world.
Selgas’s procedural and defense choices reinforced his placement within conventional legal jurisdiction and underlined his culpability. In the jury’s view, his strategic errors and legal maneuvers not only failed to shield him from prosecution but also clarified his intention to evade tax duties deliberately. However, I am sure some people might use cases involving these agents as a way to discourage others from exploring legal matters. In his full interview, Joe Bannister discusses how the US Government tried to take legal action against him. He not only defended himself but also claims to have won a lawsuit related to the alleged violation of his liberties.
Referring back to the FBI document on sovereign citizens, everything everything appears to fit. Together. In a notably uncanny way, his case is an important contrast and fitting conclusion to the tax aspect of illuminating the true intention behind laws or police policies enforcing sovereign citizen Protocol. So let’s take a brief listen to a four minute excerpt from his interview featuring former IRS agent Joe Bannister, who shares the compelling evidence they found in the IRS’s own law library. And what led you on this investigation to figure out whether or not paying income taxes was legitimate, was legal, was constitutional, and how did you have this like, come to Jesus moment about federal taxes? My entire professional life revolved around the income tax.
Earned a degree in accounting from San Jose State University back in the 80s, and earned my CPA certificate from the state of California. And so I was hired in San Francisco, sworn in in November of 1993. But my like, as I say, my entire professional life revolved around the income tax. I expected to spend a full 20 year career, law enforcement career with the IRS. I was having the time of my life living and working in the city that I grew up in, San Jose, and being a federal agent, a federal criminal investigator. So, you know, if any bias at all against the information that I came upon, it was that, you know, this stuff couldn’t possibly be true.
And so I was listening to this talk show hosted by a guy that was very trustworthy. He wasn’t a partisan kind of guy, just about what’s right or wrong. And he had a guest on his show and she started talking about the income tax and saying that it was voluntary, that there wasn’t a law, you know, passed by Congress and signed by the President that made most Americans required to pay the federal income tax. And if you can imagine me driving around in my government car with my handcuffs and Sig Sour 9 millimeter and, you know, saying, lady, this tax ain’t voluntary, right? But because of this talk show host and how truthful all of the previous guests had been and how truthful he was, he was like a colonel in the special forces of the army, just a real trustworthy guy.
So I thought, well, something’s wrong here. And so I just started to deploy my training, training on my own time to investigate these claims, to see what’s this all about. At the time, they were called illegal tax protesters. So the IRS really had a, you know, a bad thing for them. And so I just began to gather facts and to cut, you know, give you the cash value. After two, two and a half years, it was all through 1997 and 1998, going to the law library and really digging deep into these claims and using, you know, every skill that I could muster being a cpa, you know, the IRS trained me in Glencoe, Georgia.
The federal law enforcement Training center up this, upstairs in this. We called it the Gold Building, believe it or not, where the IRS was housed. Because in San Jose, California, on Market street, it’s literally got gold windows. Upstairs was the IRS law library. And so one of the claims was that the IRS’s own internal manuals called the Internal Revenue Manual, or IRM as the acronym. Inside that manual, it would actually say that the IRS Criminal Investigation Division that I worked in, or the Examination division, which is where the auditors are, or the collection division, where the, you know, guys that steal your or take money out of your bank account and put liens on your houses and those things.
If you look at the Internal Revenue Manual, you’ll see that it actually lays out that the jurisdiction, you know, the reach, the ability of these IRS agents is limited to Americans who are living and working abroad, outside the country, not inside the country where you’d expect, because that’s where we see them. They’re on tv. They’re out there doing their audits and investigations. And I thought, well, that couldn’t possibly be true. So I went upstairs to the law library and flipped through the official Internal Revenue Manual that the IRS keeps for their own lawyers and accountants, and there it was.
In fact, I’ve got that on my website on the landing page, agentfortruth.com these copies of the Internal Revenue Manual that I looked at and thought, wow, well, this isn’t a lie. This is exactly as these people that the IRS called illegal tax protesters are saying that the IRS’s own admission in their own Bible, you know, their own manual says that their reach, their jurisdiction is limited to Americans living and working abroad. This document marked law enforcement sensitive, titled Sovereign Citizen Citizens. An Introduction for Law Enforcement seems to portray Americans who are aware of government debt and question the intrinsic value of US Currency as criminals by stating, quote, sovereign citizens believe the US Declared bankruptcy when the United States government was removed from the gold standard.
As a result, US Currency referred to as Federal Reserve Notes is perceived as valueless credit notes. The monetary system is now believed to be based on exchanging one credit document for another. Sovereign citizens believe this makes US Currency essentially worthless. It appears to target Americans who feel their rights have been violated by labeling them as criminals if they seek civil remedies, stating, quote, sovereign citizens may file lawsuits against law enforcement or members of the court in their individual capacity seeking civil remedies for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. Additionally, it seems to discourage incarcerated Americans from using legal resources by implying they might engage in criminal activities, stating, quote, while incarcerated sovereign citizens may utilize the prison library to research federal and case law to determine new ways to create fraudulent financial documents and engage in criminal activity.
Sovereign citizens may also train fellow inmates to conduct fraudulent schemes to defraud banks, credit institutions, and the United States government. The document indicates that sovereign citizens often file an Affidavit of Truth declaring themselves as sovereign or freeborn sovereign under natural common law. The documents go on to say, quote, they may attempt to void various legal and financial ties, including Federal Reserve notes, US Currency, bank accounts, Social Security number, driver’s license, license of vehicle license plates, birth certificate, marriage license, US Citizenship, voter registration, past tax returns, and lastly enrolling children in public schools. These actions are suggested to revoke implied consent to governmental authority at birth.
The document appears to caution against mechanisms challenging government authority, such as the corporation soul, which it claims sovereign citizens exploit to avoid taxes and hide assets. It notes, quote, a corporation’s soul is a legitimate statute for religious leaders to incorporate an organization to manage property. Sovereign citizens misuse it to avoid taxes, launder money, and conceal assets. The document bundles legitimate rights with alleged criminal activities, potentially confusing and deterring average citizens from asserting their rights. The document even admits, quote, however, it is important to note these activities activities may also be indicative of lawful innocent conduct and in some instances may constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the United states constitution.
In 2015, the FBI released a document marked for official use only titled Sovereign Citizen Extremism A Primer, which has since been declassified. The document expands on the terminology used by law enforcement to describe individuals identified as sovereign citizens, stating, quote, the term sovereign citizen is used mainly by law enforcement. Adherents tend to self identify as sovereign free men, flesh and blood persons, diplomats, indigenous Americans, living beings, etc. The government often includes disclaimers to protect itself from potential legal challenges related to these documents. These disclaimers, when combined with critical thinking, can also help readers dissect the document.
Document’s Psychological Impact the document even notes that sovereign beliefs are not inherently illegal, stating, quote, sovereign citizens make up a diverse nationwide movement as opposed to comprising a single, organized, homogeneous group. Because it is not illegal to advocate sovereign beliefs, the FBI does not maintain account of sovereign citizens. The movement, which has its origins in the United States, has appeared in Canada, the U.K. ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and mainland Europe. This is seen as an example of doublespeak because sovereign beliefs could refer to either 1 the beliefs held by a sovereign citizen or 2American beliefs characterized as sovereign.
Some might view this as the government’s effort to obscure distinctions. Additionally, it states, quote, it is not illegal to advocate sovereign citizen beliefs. Individual indicators of sovereign citizen activity may comprise lawful conduct or non sovereign citizen criminal activity. No single indicator should be the sole basis for a determination of sovereign citizen activity. The document attaches a negative stigma to legitimate assertions of rights, potentially demonizing those who assert these rights to others who may not understand conventional law. This divide perpetuates an invisible barrier that inhibits people’s awareness of their rights. By using doublespeak and multi layered deaf definitions, it discourages individuals from exploring their rights further.
The document goes as deep as to specifically reference Moorish sovereign citizens acknowledging quote Moorish sovereign citizens claim special status as non citizen protectees of the US Government due to a Treaty of friendship between the United states and Morocco 17871836 or through alleged membership in Indian tribes. Not all self identified moors are sovereign citizens and not all Moorish sovereigns are engaged in illegal activity. Furthermore, it appears to label individuals who possess significant knowledge of legal systems and the Uniform Commercial Code as potential criminals stating quote sovereign citizens claim to possess secret truths about the US Financial system, hidden conspiracies or knowledge about supposed government suppressed technologies.
The term sovereign citizen is used mainly by law enforcement. Adherents tend to self identify as sovereign free men, flesh and blood persons, diplomats, indigenous Americans, living beings, etc. They purport special understanding about legal procedure, common law and the Uniform Commercial Code. We discussed earlier the legal definitions of public and private. If you recall, the government uses language suggesting that sovereign citizens view life in terms of public and private spheres, potentially deterring academic exploration of constitutional rights. The document goes on to say, quote, sovereign citizens view the world in terms of opposing halves, sometimes referred to as public and private spheres.
The public sphere is embodied by the corporate United States and concomitant privileges granted to U.S. citizens. In the private sphere, however, individuals enjoy unalienable rights and lived free of government intrusion. Sovereign citizens assume most Americans are unaware they have been duped into accepting US citizenship literally from birth when the government required unsuspecting parents to apply for birth certificates. The government seems to discourage both Americans and sheriffs from pursuing common law concepts. They convey that many individuals referred to as quote sovereigns use what they call common law to address their inevitable legal issues. Sheriffs are highlighted as key targets for recruitment into the sovereign citizen movement, which the government warns against.
The government document claims sovereign citizens often do away with official government identification to avoid binding agreements with institutions they don’t recognize. Instead of using traditional IDs, they might present self made documents like badges, credentials or identity cards which can look quite official Sometimes they even attach fraudulent license plates to vehicles claiming affiliation with unknown organizations or diplomatic entities. These documents might refer to legal cases or the Universal Commercial Code. The government seems to caution police officers about potentially challenging interactions with individuals identifying as sovereign citizens. They describe such individuals as typically argumentative and resistant during interactions like traffic stops.
The document claims these individuals might quote one deny the court’s authority by asserting they are flesh and blood sovereign beings beyond its jurisdiction 2 argue over distinctions like traveling versus driving, or claim they’re engaged in personal non commercial activities or 3 express reluctance to enter into any contractual relationships with officers. This effort aims to illustrate how the United States government may exercise extensive control, possibly diminishing individual power and perceived freedoms. In 2021, the United States government, through the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, DHS released a document titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism, which has now been declassified.
This document introduces a revised term for sovereign citizens, sovereign citizen violent extremists. According to the US Government, actions by these individuals are now classified under, quote, sovereign citizen Violent extremism. The FBI and DHS define this as the potentially illegal use or threat of force or violence to advance anti government or anti authority ID ideological agendas by those identifying as sovereign citizens. The FBI and DHS claim sovereign citizens often assert they possess unique knowledge or heritage, granting them immunity from governmental laws and authority. The document further notes an incident where an individual allegedly shot at law enforcement officers during the arrest of his father, who was accused of fraudulent filings related to sovereign citizen ideologies.
The document even stating the individual was injured during the confrontation with law enforcement, seemingly hinting to the suggestion of force to the point of injury to anyone who asserts their rights? This is because anyone who asserts their rights matches the criteria for being considered a sovereign citizen, some say by design. I’ll conclude this analysis of sovereign citizens and the government’s stance with four questions for you to consider. Do you believe that when the U.S. government labels certain Americans as sovereign citizens, it might be an error stemming from a lack of understanding leading the US Government to mistakenly criminalize individuals who are actually exercising their rights correctly? Alternatively, do you think the US Government is fully aware of its actions and is intentionally labeling these individuals in a particular way? Question 3 why do you think civics education, which included teachings on conventional law versus common law and other topics, has been removed from the American school curriculum? Lastly, question 4 if you were a busy police officer reading such documents, would you invest the time to verify whether your employer, the government in this case was providing incorrect information or deliberately misleading you or.
Just continue. Continue following orders. Let’s review the incident involving Vermont State Trooper Cole Verdall’s body cam footage recorded around 1:37pm on March 26, 2024 at 1292 Rockingham Road, Bellows Falls, Vermont. During this time, Alice was stopped for an alleged motor vehicle violation without any specific articulable crime. Trooper Verdal informed Alice that she was pulled over because he couldn’t, quote, see an inspection sticker on her, quote, motor vehicle. Throughout the three minute stop, Alice repeatedly asked Trooper Verdahl, nine times in total if she had committed a crime, to which Trooper Verdahl ultimately replied, quote, I have nothing else to say.
On that, Alice calmly asserted, quote, it is my constitutional right to travel in my personal property, thereby expressing her rights promptly and avoiding claims of latches, thus maintaining that the officer had no jurisdiction over her. Trooper Verdal responded with, quote, you are not free to go. As he returned to his vehicle. I’ll be on 103 near the Vermont Country Store. Vermont passenger Frank mary king and 973. It’s a blue Honda Civic. Good afternoon. I’m Trooper Cole, Vermont State Police. Reason I stopped you. I don’t see an inspection sticker on here. Oh, no, you don’t have an inspection.
You do need one. The state of Vermont. Do you have your license on you? You don’t have your license? I don’t need a license. Driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle. You do need a driver’s license. This is my personal property. What was that? This is my. Have I committed a crime? Okay, so our. If you let me speak, you just ask me a question. This is a car stop, right? For a motor vehicle violation, there’s no inspection on the car. You need an inspection in order to drive a vehicle here in state of Vermont. Okay, so it’s a.
It’s a simple traffic stop. We pull people over, let them know what the infraction is, and we take it from there. Okay? Have I committed a crime? Did you hear what I just said? Have I committed a crime? I don’t answer questions. Do you have your driver’s license on you? I’m not answering questions. All right, hang tight for me. Shut the car off. I’ll be right back with you. Have I committed a crime? Listen, ma’am, have I committed a. We’re not going to do the back and forth, okay? I committed a crime. Did you not just hear what I said? Have I committed a crime? You don’t have an inspection on your vehicle and that’s a reason for the stop.
When I asked for your driver’s license, you tell me that you don’t have a driver’s license. Have I committed a crime, sir? I just explained everything to you. You do not have an inspection for the camera as well. You do not have an inspection on your vehicle. You need one. Okay? This is why I pulled you over traveling and I asked for your license cuz that’s what we do on traffic stops. Okay? I already explained the whole infraction to you, so hang tight for me. If you like to speak to a sergeant, I can get one out the line for you as well.
Am I free to go? You are not free to go. I’m telling you right now, you are not free to go. I just explained everything to you, so I have nothing else to say on that. Okay? Okay. You are not free to go. It is my constitutional right to travel. You are not free to go. Okay? Hang out right here. Do not go anywhere. I’ll be right back with you. By asserting her rights, Alice highlighted the established right to travel, which Trooper Verdahl infringed upon violating Alice’s Fourth Amendment rights. The legal standard requires that such rights be, quote, sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what they are doing violates that right, end quote.
This is supported by Millennix vs Luna, 577 US 7 11, where the rights were considered clearly established. Court cases like Thompson vs. Smith, Teschlines vs. Danforth and other landmark cases affirm this right. Alice repeatedly questioned Trooper Verdal, providing him fair notice that his actions lacked lawful basis. His refusal to engage confirms the principle as outlined in Brousseau vs. Haugen, where officers require fair notice that their conduct was unlawful. Trooper Verdahl’s actions deprived Alice of her constitutional rights, which a reasonable officer should have recognized, thus potentially negating qualified immunity. Under the legal doctrine, officials are shielded from monetary damages unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to a reasonable person, as explained in Sumter vs.
Wayne County. Additionally, when Alice refused to answer questions, it should not have been used to infer suspicion of criminal activity, as clarified In United States vs. Smith, which states that a suspect’s refusal to answer does not in itself justify reasonable suspicion. At around 1:40pm Trooper Verdal returned to his police vehicle after unsuccessfully trying to intimidate Alice into waiving her rights. He failed to establish jurisdiction as he did not articulate any crime nor engage in a meaningful dialogue about the situation. After waiting Calmly for about five minutes, Alice addressed Trooper Verdahl stating, quote, unless I’ve committed a crime, you have no right to hold me.
I’m going to be leaving now. She made it clear that her detainment was unlawful due to the lack of justification, and stated her intention to leave. As she resumed her journey at normal speeds, Trooper Verdahl remarked, quote, I’ll just be behind her doing normal speeds, end quote, as he described Alice as a sovereign citizen over the radio to dispatch 534 Westminster. That operator is going to be refusing to identify herself or provide a license. Can you run that 28 and tell me the 27 attached to it, please? Please? I’m gonna call and you’re very staticky, vice minister, page 34.
Hey. Yeah, yeah, I’m all set. So I got 29 coming my way as well. I couldn’t hear you on the radio, but this lady is refusing to identify herself, saying she doesn’t want to give me her license. So I just wanted to know what the 28 was. It’s Alice Buchanan. 2007 Honda Civic. Yes, it’s going to be on at Civic. Yeah. And she is valid to 27 with no convictions. Date of birth of 828, 70. I don’t know what her deal is. Yeah, she’s pulling, like, the sovereign citizen thing. Like, have I committed a crime? I’m on.
I’m a traveler on this roadway. Yeah. So, okay, she’s doing all that. Thank you. I’m actually. How many traffic stop, or do you want me to start it? I just started one. Do you mind throwing everything that you have in there, please? Oh, I definitely will. I just don’t see it. That’s why I was asking. I just started. Thank you so much. Okay, perfect. There it is. All right, I’ll put it in. All right, nice. Bye. Bye. Hey, Sarge. Hey. What does he look like, this. This person? Yeah, it’s gonna be a female. Older female, looks like she has red hair.
I told her not to. She’s coming out the car now. Hold on. Just stay in the car for me, okay? No, stay in the car for me. I’ve already explained it all to you. Just stay in the car for me. I’ll be. You’re not leaving. Sorry, she’s trying to leave. Yeah, she’s. She’s trying to take off right now. She’s. She just took off. She’s leaving? Yep, I’m right behind her. 54 Westminster. Just. You got her on video there, so just. We’ll figure out who it is. Do you think she’s DUI or anything? Hold on, Sarge, that vehicle’s gonna be taken off on me.
I’m following behind it. No, Serge, I don’t think so. DUI or anything. She’s being very, like, sovereign citizen. Like, I’m traveling on the road. I don’t need to identify myself and so forth. All right, just. Just shut it down. We’ll figure out who it is. Oh, all right. All right. Yep, it is the. Shut it down. Okay. Yeah. All righty. Thank you. Yep. By 5, 3, 4. Westminster. I’m. I just shut it down. She’s still driving down 103 north past the Vermont Country Store in Bells Falls. It’s a blue Honda Civic. Yeah, she’s headed toward the Chester direction.
Just going normal speeds. I might stop and turn it around soon. Just be behind her. Going normal speeds, about 50 miles an hour. If the Chester units are wondering what the stop was for, it’s going to be she has no inspection stickers and she then failed to identify herself before taking off. And I’m just about to turn around here. She’s still going past Horseshoe Road north on 103. Legal standards for stops, including traffic stops, dictate they must not last longer than necessary to fulfill their purpose, as highlighted in Everett, 601 F.3d at 488. Once the reason for the initial stop is addressed, further detention requires a, quote, reasonable and articulable suspicion, end quote, of ongoing criminal activity.
As noted In United States vs Davis, 430F3D345. Even if an initial stop is legally valid, any subsequent detention must also adhere to constitutional standards and be neither overly intrusive nor unreasonably prolonged. As outlined In United States vs. Shank, 543 F.3d 309. To extend a stop legitimately beyond its initial scope, an officer must have independent, reasonable suspicion. Supported by Hernandez vs. Bol’s, 949F.3d 251. The 6th Circuit ruled in 2012 that prolonging a traffic stop by even six minutes for questioning could exceed its original purpose unless new suspicions arose during the interaction supporting that position. With past decisions, including Richardson, 385 F.3d at 6, 30, 31, Alice’s five minute wait, with no crime articulated, justified her decision to continue traveling, as Trooper Verdahl had no legal basis for pursuit.
And finally, Trooper Verdal cannot claim Alice’s possible status as a sovereign citizen to justify extending the stop because his assumption was based on an unfounded hunch without specific facts. At 1:42pm after only two minutes of interaction, Trooper Verdal suggested this possibility, but his reasoning lacked tangible grounds. As demonstrated by William Eugene Claver vs Hamilton County, Tennessee 2022. At around 1:45pm Trooper Verdahl unlawfully activated his emergency lights and sirens, misusing police equipment and violating Vermont Statutes annotated section 3006, official misconduct. By doing so, he performed an unauthorized act within his official capacity, abusing his authority in his unjustified pursuit of Alice.
In addition, trooper Verdal breached 18 USC section 242, deprivation of rights under color of law, by willfully infringing upon Alice’s constitutional rights under the pretense of lawful authority. Authority. Despite lacking justification since no crime was involved, Trooper Verdahl acknowledged that Alice posed no danger when he stated, quote, I don’t think she’s DUI or anything. She’s being very like sovereign citizen like, end quote. His unwarranted pursuit of Alice escalated into a tense and risky situation for all road users, violating 13vsA section 1025, reckless endangerment by engaging in a hazardous activity without justification. By pursuing Alice, Trooper Verdahl failed to recognize her constitutional rights, wrongly labeling her as a sovereign citizen without exercising sound judgment, he relied solely on training rather than exercising critical thinking.
The US Government’s negligence induced Trooper Verdal to believe he had the authority to infringe upon Alice’s rights without justification, which he reasonably but incorrectly relied on. This constitutes estoppel by negligence, which warrants the dismissal of this case. When Alice did not consent to orders such as providing id, asserting her right to remain private without committing any crime, she placed herself outside the scope of conventional law, thus beyond Trooper Verdal’s jurisdiction to issue commands. At approximately 1:52pm Trooper Verdal intentionally deactivated both his body and dash cameras during the pursuit of Alice for about 10 minutes, reacting, activating them afterward.
This act was intended to conceal evidence of his unlawful conduct, amounting to an attempt to obstruct justice in violation of 13 VSA Section 3015, obstruction of justice. The pursuit lasted for 12 minutes, concluding on Route 11, Chester, Vermont at approximately 1:57pm where Chester Police Chief Thomas E. Williams obstructed Alice’s constitutional right to travel by positioning his vehicle in a way that prevented her from continuing. When Alice calmly and respectfully pulled over, she was threatened with severe harm. Police Chief Williams said, quote, I will shoot you right through the window, forcing her to comply with his unlawful order.
Notably, Alice’s face was the only visible target through the window. No, I’m just pulling over. Do I. Don’t answer questions. Do what? Don’t do what? Try and run my ass over. I will shoot you right through the freaking window. I was just pulling. Give me your driver’s license. Put the car in park. Give me your driver’s license. Yes, you have, actually. Have I committed. Yes, you have. Give me your license now. You can look at me all you want. Give me your license. We can do this easily or not easily. I don’t really care. I’m about to pull you out your window.
Why? Because you’ll be under arrest in a second. I’m giving you a lawful order. Do it now. Have I committed. Do it now. Have I committed a crime? Ma’am, I’m not going to tell you again. Am I free to go? No, you’re not. Why? Because you’re being detained for a crime. What crime? You were just stopped by a trooper and you left. Failure to ID yourself. There’s one. I’m. I’m a living person. My name is. And I’m a living person, too, and we can do this easily. Chief Williams. Thanks, Chief. Have I committed. Yes, you have.
What’s the crime? We’re not going to do this. I have a constitutional. You do. And I have a right to uphold the law. Give me your driver’s license. That’s. That’s it. Id. That’s all I need. Id. I’m telling you, my name is Alice. Okay, Alice. Alice what? I am a living person. Alice what? Alice Buchanan. And you own the car? Yes, that’s correct. Okay, that’s one step. One. I just need your ID to verify that that truly is you. That’s it. That’s as simple as it gets. A driver’s license is a straw man. Really? Yeah. What country are you living in? What country are you living in? Well, apparently not a free country.
It’s not right now because you’re being detained. Well, okay, the next. Have I committed a crime? I don’t. You don’t have to commit a crime to be detained. Look up your law. Look it up. I have a right. And I have a right to detain you. You’re not on your property. You’re on a public highway. I’m traveling highway. I’m traveling in my personal. You are on a public highway. I am. I have permission to travel in my personal property. And guess what? I’m the law on the public highway. Not you. Not you. Have I committed a crime? I’ve already answered that five freaking times.
Not answering it again. Not happening. You won’t get that answer again. So just to be clear, just left the scene with a trooper. You took off on him. He tried stopping you. That’s leaving the scene down there of a crime. Of a crime? You’re on a traffic stop. For what purpose? Ask the trooper that you left behind. He turned on the lights and siren came up behind you. You still took off. I was driving safely. I was following the law. You have an obligation under law to stop and identify yourself. You did not identify yourself. And your name, Alice Buchanan.
Did not identify yourself. I have a right to be free of searches. I’m not searching. I’m asking for your driver’s license. I have a right to ask for your driver’s license. You’re on a public highway. You can ask me for a driver’s license. And failure to identify yourself. You’ll get buckled up until you identify yourself properly. That’s it. That’s all I’m asking you. That’s it. You have to show me your driver’s license. That is it. That’s that simple. I’ll show you my checkbook. I don’t want your checkbook. That’s not valid id. A government id. What is the problem, Alice? I don’t understand why the big deal.
The problem is, is that we are living in a system with straw men. I don’t. I don’t understand what that is. Okay, well, I would suggest that maybe that’s where you just. I’m not. I’m not going to get into a debate about that. I’m just simply asking a question. What you mean by strong men. Strong man. What’s that? It is. It is a. An identification. As if I were dead. Lost at sea. I don’t get it. I don’t either. And that’s why I refuse. And I say I am a living person right now. Let me ask you this.
What is your right to not identify? I guess we’ll go from the other side. I. I have a right to exist. Do you have a right to be drive? Of course. I’m traveling. I’m actually traveling in my personal property. I’m not driving. Driving is commercial. Your car. I. Your id. That’s it. I have state police want your id, and they’re going to get your id, Period. That’s just the way it is. You’re going back to 28 and West? Yes. Where I reside. Okay. Yeah. All I have to do is verify that. That’s it. That’s all I’m gonna do when they call me home, I have a call that I’ll be home and sitting your driveway.
No, I’ll be going in and making my phone calls. You can make as many phone calls as you want. You got a phone right in your hand. Make them now. You can make all the phone calls you want. Okay. I just need your id. So I get the straw man stuff. I get all that stuff. I just need your id. Yes, you need. Why do you. Why do you need a piece of paper? Who you are? I don’t know you from anybody. If I knew you, then I could say, yeah, that’s who you are. But I don’t know yet.
I’ve never run into it. Well, it’s nice to meet you, Chief Williams. Police Chief Williams violated Alice’s fourth amendment right against unreasonable seizure and excessive force by blocking her vehicle and making threats without justification. He also breached Alice’s Fortune 14th Amendment right to substantive due process by threatening lethal force, contravening protections against arbitrary state actions, particularly where lethal force is unjustified. By using excessive force, Police Chief Williams violated 18 USC Section 242, Deprivation of Rights under color of law. Threatening Alice constituted a willful violation of her constitutional rights through excessive or unreasonable force. Additionally, this action was A violation of 13vsA section 1023, simple assault by threatening Alice with unwarranted harm, placing her in reasonable fear of imminent injury.
Furthermore, Chief Williams breached 13 VSA section 3006, official misconduct by threatening Alice with deadly force without legal justification. It’s noteworthy to mention that Police Chief Williams later claimed his dash cam was being repaired and did not provide body cam footage during discovery. Despite Alice maintaining a calm demeanor in asserting her rights, Police Chief Williams became increasingly agitated, yelling, quote, yes, you have. In response to her statement that she had not committed any crime. Rather than protecting Alice as a citizen, he chose to defend his fellow officer, disregarding critical thinking concerning his actions and exacerbating Alice’s trauma by threatening detecting her in response to her lawful exercise of rights.
Police Chief Williams cited, quote, failure to ID as the offense justifying her current detention, linked to her earlier disengagement from Trooper Verdahl’s extended unjustified stop. Alice clearly stated, quote, I have a constitutional right to travel. But Police Chief Williams dismissed this assertion, responding, I have a right to uphold the law. As mentioned earlier, by not consenting to provide ice while in a private capacity and committing no crime, Alice placed herself outside the conventional law, thus beyond the officer’s authority. Police Chief Williams failed in his duty by not verifying whether Alice had committed the alleged crime independently substantiated by Trooper Verdahl’s earlier action, which was without fault from Alice.
Through his unlawful actions, Police Chief Williams violated 42 USC § 1983 Civil Rights Violations by infringing upon Alice’s constitutional rights. Around 2:03pm When Trooper Verdahl and Trooper Eric Acevedo approached Police Chief Williams dismissively addressed Alice, saying, quote, you apparently are the strong man or the straw man. He ignored her explanations, failing to respect her rights and privacy by mocking her assertions in the presence of another officer and bystanders. He publicly ridiculed her, revealing personal information without regard for her dignity in front of potential friends, family, or employers in this small community. Alice reiterated to the officers that she left Trooper Verdal’s traffic stop because it was unlawful, stating, quote, I asked him for what crime and he didn’t answer, emphasizing her right to travel in her personal property.
Trooper Verdal further infringed on Alice’s constitutional rights, responding, quote, it doesn’t matter if it’s your personal personal property. Contravening 42 USC Section 1983, which enables individuals to sue government officials for constitutional violations, Alice questioned the officer’s authority to violate her rights and unlawfully detain her, to which Trooper Acevedo humorously replied that it came from, quote, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles while suppressing a laugh. By 2:05pm Trooper Acevedo informed Alice she was under arrest for eluding a police officer. Alice responded by asserting, quote, I am not stepping out of my personal property because I would then be subjecting myself to your authority, and I am not.
Trooper Verdal proceeded to threaten Alice, stating, quote, we don’t want to have to remove you from the vehicle, which will be the next step. Alice stood her ground, declaring, quote, I am under my authority and God’s authority. I have never agreed, agreed to subject myself to your authority. You could not identify which crime I committed. At which Trooper Verdahl responded, quote, yes, that’s correct, end quote. Affirming their position, but not the validity of the charge, Trooper Verdal escalated the situation, saying, quote, alice, this is not a choice. You are coming with us. With Trooper Acevedo adding undue pressure, warning, quote, you’re going to get another charge.
It’s going to be resisting arrest in Trooper Verdal, intensive, justifying it further, quote, because of your behavior and actions, it’s being raised up. I don’t get the. The whole ID part, understandable. And I need the id. Why? Because I have to Identify who you are. You’re obviously having an issue today. I was grocery shopping and traveling safely and coming home. You got stopped by the trooper. I got. Why? I don’t know. Talk to him. He’s right here. Well, because again, you apparently are the strong man or the straw man. Straw man. Straw man. No, no, no.
Hi, ma’am. So this trooper tried. Tried to pull you over. Did pull you over, and then you left the scene. Because I asked him if I had committed a crime, and he didn’t answer. Well, you did now for leaving the scene. A scene of what? The traffic stop, your siren on and everything, right? Yeah. Yeah. Everything. Okay. Yeah. So. And what was the purpose? So I explained to you, you’ve been on your video several times. You don’t have an inspection sticker, So I stopped. Personal property. It doesn’t matter if it’s your personal property. You do need an inspection sticker.
Okay. According to Title 23, you need an inspection. Okay, I appreciate it. Under the state of Vermont law, which I explained also earlier. So are you gonna identify yourself from this for this trooper now or no? Yes. Hi, my name is Alice. Do you have a license? If I had a license, that would be allowing my. A straw man to take precedence over the fact that I’m here and alive and traveling in my personal property. Gotcha. What’s a straw man? The straw man is what was created with the whole license piece. Gotcha. Okay, well, I totally get it.
You have your own beliefs and whatnot. But in the state of Vermont, if you’re driving on a public highway or roadway, you have to identify yourself. Okay, I have to identify myself because you. Your vehicle did not have an inspection circuit, which is a Violation of Title 23 in the state of Vermont, which is a motor vehicle infraction. So it’s not necessarily. According to who? Like I just stated, the Commissioner, Motor Vehicles. That’s who. Okay, so I’ve committed a crime. You did. You did Now. Yes, you have. So I’m gonna. I’m gonna have you step out.
Okay? No. Yep. No, you’re gonna have to step out. No. It’s not like a choice, though, ma’am. Legally, she needs to hear. And she’s under arrest because that’s what we went through already. Okay. Alrighty. Well, ma’am, you are under arrest. Okay. Have what for? For eluding a police officer. For eluding a police officer. Exactly. All righty. So go on ahead and step out for us. Step out for us, please. No, step out. Come on. Come on out. You are. You are under arrest. I am not stepping out of my personal property. All right, ma’am, I’m gonna unhook your seat belt there, or this trooper has it.
Can you put the phone at the other end? You’re free to keep recording. Come on. We’re gonna hop on. Come on. Ma’am. No, ma’am, we don’t want to hurt you, so please come on out. You really don’t want to. Is that a threat? No, no, it’s a. It’s an actual information for you because we don’t want to hurt you. Pulling you out because you’re under arrest. Ma’am. Ma’am. Neutral, maybe, yeah. Ma’am, we don’t. Jump on out for us, please. Is your name Alice? We already have your name, your date of birth, your last name, where you live and everything.
So why are you so. Why. Because you’re still under arrest, okay? So step on out for us, please. Please. We’re asking very nicely. Asking very nicely. Of course we’re not going to be mean. I’m not going to step out. Okay, well, we don’t want to have to remove you from the vehicle, which is going to be the next step, okay? So you’re going to be coming out either way. So please, can you come out willing, because then I would be allowing myself to be under your authority, and I am not. You’re already under arrest. Now, I am under.
I am under my authority and God’s authority, and I have never agreed to subject myself to your authority. I didn’t agree to you leaving the scene of a traffic stop, either. So please step on out. Ma’am, you could not identify, which he’s already told. We already did. I’ve already told you several times, Allison, saying that I left the scene of a stop. Of a traffic stop. Correct, the stop that I had you on. But we’re not going to circle talk because you already know that. You could not explain to me why you pulled me over. I said that on your video several times.
So we’re. So we’re not going to go back for your inspection sticker that you don’t have, and you need it, okay? So go ahead, step on out of the car, please. Alice, this is not a choice. You have to step out of the car and you are coming with us. Okay? This is a choice. It’s not a choice. At this point, you are under arrest. You do have to step out of the vehicle. Alice. Alice, please. If not, you’re gonna get. You’re gonna get another charge. It’s gonna be resisting Arrest right now. This is down here.
And because of your behavior and actions, it’s being risen up. It does not have to be like that, okay? Just please step out of the car willingly for us. Alice, are you gonna step out of the car? All right, I’m gonna ask you to put your phone down and I’m gonna be taking you out of the car, okay? Or we can leave a recording. I’ll put it right up here. And it’s still recording and pointing at me. And I’m gonna be taking you out of the car. Okay? Come on. Come on, Alice, please. Come on. We appreciate it.
It’s all right. Thank you. Because we don’t want to hurt cruisers right here. Cameras are running too, so your camera’s also still running. Yeah, that should be fine. Is it? Yeah, should be fine. All right, Alex, we’re going to let you just hang out right there in front of the cruiser. Yeah, just put your body there. Put some handcuffs on her. Just your other hand back here too, please. I know your key is in there. And double octo so that they don’t tighten up on you. You got any weapons or anything on anything going to stick me, poke me, hurt me, Al, she’s going to back you up a little bit so the cameras get a better angle there.
There you go. Yep. There. Now you can face the cruiser. Keep facing that. There you go. Thank you. In your pockets. All right. I’m going to take your key out of your pocket here. Here. Okay. Just give that to the chief. Just. Cuz they don’t need a. So thank you. Just candies in there. Okay. Slowly. Okay. Yeah. Going to other side. Other side. Alex, gonna come this way. Come on. Hold it right there. You can come on this way for me, Alice. Come on, Come on. All right, sit down, please. Put your up there. Palace. Stop, you’re gonna hurt yourself with the handcuffs.
Stand up, Tommy. Sit on the seat, please. Thank you, ma’am. Yeah, what is it? What is it? It’s the handcuffs because you’re not helping yourself out. Lean forward, lean forward. The pressure is going to be off your hands, okay? Put your butt on the seat so we can get your legs in there, please. Yep. All right, slide in. Slide right on in. Thank you. Oh, thanks, chief. Yeah, I got it in my pocket. I’ll sit with her. Appreciate it. Okay, thank you. She’s not gonna stop for me. Okay. As soon as I saw the tiger sign, she slowed down, I went like I was gonna go around her.
Gotcha. And as soon as she slowed down, I just pulled in front of her. Perfect. Perfect. But as I’m walking up to the car, she’s backing up, trying to come out towards me. I’m like, oh, no. Yeah, I saw. The car is in reverse. Right. You guys want to want her first? And then she started coming forward because I think she man speech and gotcha. Are you gonna want to charge her too, or. No, Just go with ours. I don’t know if you had your siren on or not. Oh, I’ll get her. Okay. I don’t have video in that car.
Okay. Got. Is being repaired. I’ll hit her with the looting if we can do times too. Then the affidavit and then KN. The other tickets for the inspection. And what that also. Okay, there’s. There’s tickets for. Give her the same tickets and I’ll give you the same exact ones. Awesome, awesome. Will do. I’ll be in contact then. Thank you. All right. What were you saying, Ace? Was that. No, I thought you were saying. No, no, I just. Okay. I just show up. You guys are always there to help out. I’m going to take her back and get through it.
N. She’s just sovereign citizen, I’m assuming. Oh, yeah. Thanks, man. Hey, no problem, man. See you. See you. Thanks again, Che. No problems. Let me check out the car. Nothing in there. Right. And I. Not that I saw it. I mean, she just. She constantly going on. You’re the straw man. I don’t have to. Am I under. All right. So I’m like, well, you’re not yet. This is funny because we were just talking about sovereign citizens the other day and how we never really dealt with one, and now there you go. If you want her ID probably sitting right there, the outside of that.
See a picture of her? Oh, yeah, yeah. It’s all right because she’s not gonna verbally. I. Well, she said she was Alice and she’s a red thread owner. Yeah, that’s her last name. Yeah. We should be fine. Yeah. Right, right, right. Yeah. I don’t see anything. Her people say look a little constricted, but it looks fine. I guess she does look like she’s on something. Yeah, she might be. Maybe we can go down that road once we get back at the bears, and maybe she’s a little bit more cooperative or something. Yeah. Plus I’m saying I see a whole bunch of pills, but I don’t know what it’s for.
Could just be vitamins or something, but. Alrighty. Thanks for hanging out. All right, no problem. Though Troopers Acevedo and Verdahl charged Alice with resisting arrest. She was actually resisting an unlawful arrest. Resisting arrest is generally defined as, quote, the crime of obstructing or opposing a police officer who is making an arrest. End quote Typically under lawful circumstances, resisting unlawful arrest is described as, quote, opposing a police officer making an unlawful arrest. End quote with some jurisdictions permitting the use of non deadly force to prevent such an arrest. Considering the case details, if Alice resisted, it would relate to an unlawful arrest.
Trooper Ver Doll’s actions, including his initial refusal to explain the crime, justifying the stop and subsequent pursuit, rendered the arrest invalid. Therefore, by definition, no lawful resisting of arrest occurred, warranting the dismissal of charges. At approximately 2:08pm Trooper Cole Verdal physically confronted Alice by grabbing her hand, taking her phone, and forcibly pulling her out of her vehicle, assisted by Trooper Eric Acevedo. By 2:09pm Trooper Vertle handcuffed Alice and conducted an unlawful search, handing her belongings over to Chester Police Chief Thomas E. Williams, who willingly accepted them. By 2:12pm Alice was forcibly placed into the police vehicle by Troopers Verdahl and Acevedo, nearly losing consciousness due to the trauma she experienced during the incident.
In arresting Alice, Troopers acevedo and verdal violated 13vsa section 2401 false imprisonment as she was unlawful detained without legal justification. Their actions also breached 18 USC Section 241, conspiracy against rights, as they conspired to oppress Alice and intimidate her in the exercise of her constitutional rights. They further breached 18 USC Section 242, Deprivation of Rights under color of law, by unlawfully acting under their authority. Their actions also violated 42 USC section 1980 civil rights violations by depriving Alice of her rights. Additionally, Troopers Acevedo and Verdal violated 13vsA section 1023, simple assault, by forcibly removing Alice from the car and taking her phone while Alice was in the vehicle.
Police Chief Thomas, Trooper Verdal and Trooper Acevedo seemed to coordinate their stories. Trooper Verdal was overheard saying, quote, I’ll get her and quote, I’ll hit her with eluding, with Trooper Acevedo agreeing, yeah, we should be fine, as he continued illegally searching Alice’s belongings, attempting to find charges against her while she was unlawfully detained. Trooper Acevedo commented, quote, yeah, I don’t see anything, end quote. Upon completing the unlawful search of Alice’s property, he later remarked, quote, her pupils did look a little constricted, but they look fine, I guess. To which Police Chief Thomas replied, quote, she does look like she’s on something.
This interaction shows Trooper Acevedo contradicting himself, responding quote, yeah, she might be with Chief Thomas speculating further. Quote yeah, pills or something. Trooper Acevedo closed the interaction by thanking the chief for, quote, hanging out as they parted ways. This conduct clearly violated 18 USC Section 241 conspiracy against rights. When Chief Thomas, Trooper Verdal, and Trooper Acevedo conspired to violate Alice’s constitutional rights, all three also breached Alice’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure by participating in her unlawful detention and arrest without probable cause. Before Police Chief Thomas departed around 2:13pm Trooper Eric Acevedo remarked, quote, this is funny.
We were talking about sovereign citizens the other day and how we never really dealt with with one and now there you go, end quote. He also stated, quote, she’s just a sovereign citizen, I’m assuming, end quote. This comment reveals that the officers took Alice’s situation and rights lightly, mislabeling her and ignoring her due to their own misconceptions and failure to diligently understand the rights all Americans hold, especially those who assert them. Throughout the encounter, Police Chief Thomas, Trooper Verdal, and Trooper acevedo violated Alice’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection by targeting her as a supposed sovereign citizen without reasonable cause, thus breaching the principle of equal protection under the law.
Alice was subsequently placed in a cell for what felt like hours due to her claustrophobia and anxiety, though records show she was there for a shorter time. This experience was torture for Alice, according to what she described. We’ve established that Trooper Verdal’s pursuit lacked justification, as underscored by United States versus Gross, which states that the reasonableness of a seizure relies on whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the initial circumstances. This infringes upon Alice’s Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Traffic stops considered seizures under the Constitution must be reasonable, as established in United States versus Blair and Delaware versus Prowess.
However, Alice’s stop was an unreasonable seizure. The search and seizure of Alice clearly exceeded reasonable bounds, contravening Fourth Amendment limits on scope and duration. As noted in Terry Stops and explained in Florida vs. Royer, Alice should be considered for damages due to the violations of her rights under section 1983. Damages aim to compensate for injuries caused by constitutional rights deprivations, as indicated in Farrar vs Hobby. Though compensatory damages require proof of actual injury, nominal damages may be awarded when a legal injury occurs without significant loss. A jury could find Alice entitled to nominal damages for the violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
The question of compensatory damages for mental or emotional distress is best suited for jury deliberation following pressure like Williams vs. Trader Pub. Co. And Torres vs. Precision Industries Incorporated. Taking into account Alice’s legal position, asserting her constitutional rights rather than committing a crime, it becomes challenging for the state to establish willfulness in any alleged offense, providing valid grounds for dismissal of charges against her in this case. In conclusion, the circumstances surrounding Alice’s traffic stop highlight serious constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The incident began with an unjustified traffic stop and escalated into an unlawful arrest and detention where Alice’s 4th and 14th amendment rights were ignored.
Officers including Trooper Verdal, Trooper Acevedo, and Police Chief Thomas acted beyond their authority, seizing Alice without probable cause and misidentifying her as a, quote, sovereign citizen, end quote. This case also raises broader concerns about the role of law enforcement in the erosion of civic education, which is essential for empowering citizens to understand and exercise their rights. The seeming operation of law enforcement as an exclusive club underscores the importance of educating the public to defend themselves against injustices such as those perpetuated by large corporations. In terms of legal recourse, Alice can look to cases like Craig versus Boren for inspiration, where substantial sums have been awarded for similar rights violations.
Though the exact maximum isn’t clearly defined in terms of specific figures for traffic stops, significant awards have recognized the gravity of rights infringements, sometimes even reaching into the millions. In broader civil rights cases, Alice can seek not only nominal damages but also substantial compensatory damages for emotional distress caused by her ordeal. To do so, she could file a lawsuit under 40 to USC Section 1983, allowing her to hold government officials accountable for violating her constitutional rights regarding officer accountability. Disciplinary actions are crucial and should be enforced. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, this might include suspension, mandatory retraining, or even termination.
The Department’s Internal affairs division or a civilian oversight board can investigate these breaches. Alice has the option to represent herself seeking justice. She can file a lawsuit on her own to claim damages for the harm she suffered. By doing this, she aims to hold the officers accountable and potentially push for disciplinary actions against them. This not only seeks fair compensation for Alice, but also encourages improvements in policing practices to ensure respect for constitutional rights. In the future, Alice can explore legal resources and guidelines available for individuals representing themselves to a efficiently navigate the legal process. Stepping back from the specifics of the traffic stop and reflecting on everything we’ve seen in our examination of the events that have unfolded surrounding Alice’s encounter with law enforcement we stand at a critical juncture.
At the heart of this case is a profound truth that the power in a jury trial lies with the jury. The jury is the embodiment of the people’s voice, the ultimate arbiters of justice in our society. Their role goes beyond mere obligation, not just a duty, but serves to set our metaphoric length of leash given, essentially defining the scope of our freedom as granted by the government. The decision for this case goes beyond the specifics of a traffic case. It is a reaffirmation of the foundational principles of our nation. It is not an attack on the essential work of police officers, officers whose challenging and crucial role we recognize law enforcement requires effort, knowledge and critical thinking, often undertaken without sufficient resources or support.
Our critique focuses not on undermining law enforcement, but on ensuring accountability and fairness under the law. As the government sometimes provides one sided narratives, Alice’s experience exemplifies a true American pioneer who has taken the extraordinary step of learning and asserting her rights at the risk of being violated. She embodies the courage and spirit of our country’s founders who declared independence seeking only to live freely and without undue financial burden, governed by their own limits. When Alice faced financial hardships, it spurred her quest to understand her rights, echoing the resolve that spurred the birth of this nation.
The responsibility of jurors is to evaluate the facts with both their hearts and minds as equal protectors of each American’s rights. If you ever find yourself in a jury box, remember that your judgment is your own. A powerful testament to our shared values and freedoms. Potentially a once in a lifetime chance to give back to your country in a way not many people get the opportunity to. Reflecting back on Alice’s case, we’ve seen that Trooper Verdal, Trooper Acevedo and Police Chief Thomas overstepped their bounds, infringing upon Alice’s constitutional rights. A traffic stop, the search, the detention, all without proper causewere violations demanding careful consideration and response.
Let us honor the deep seated principles in our Constitution, understanding that every American is, in spirit, as free and sovereign as the Founders envisioned. Jurors hold the scales of justice. Go forth not only with the facts, but with the principles of fairness and freedom that are at the core of our identity. Render the verdict with courage, conscious of the great responsibility that jurors bear. I’d like to thank everyone who has viewed this entire examination for sharing valuable hours of your existences with me in our attempt to preserve the ancient and forgotten freedoms that serve to be the True yet rarely seen lifeblood of our nation.
So essentially they articulated to me that our country was found on common law because the Declaration only refers to God four times in the Constitution, it doesn’t refer to God at all and it only articulates the structure of government. So first of all, remember that we were a collection of states and colonies and you need to read the state constitutions before anything else. Nine out of 13 of the original states required you to be a Bible believing Christian to serve in government. At the time of the founding you could even in Pence. Actually 13 out of 13 required a declaration of faith.
Nine out of 13 required you to be a Protestant except Maryland which was Catholic, which still required a declaration of faith in almost every single one of the original state constitutions, Pennsylvania included. They had I profess Lord and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in the original state constitutions. So you remember we’re a collection of states before that. Secondly, 55 out of 56 of the original signers of the declaration were Bible believing church attending Christians. You asked about common law. So common law is inherited from Blackstone who was Christian. A common law is an outgrowth of the scriptures.
So let’s go to three principles of common law. Presumption of innocence, due process and jury of your peers. All three are biblical principles. So. And all wrapped into the ultimate biblical principle that you shall not favor justice if you are rich or poor. Which is in Leviticus 19, right before most famous part of Leviticus 19, which is that you should love your neighbor with yourself. But before that is that in the administration of justice, justice you shall not favor the rich or the poor. Which is the idea of blind justice. We get that in the west, which is incorporated also in the New Testament ideal.
Neither slave nor Greek nor Jew, you’re all one in Jesus Christ. As you get the idea of human equality. These are all biblical ideas. They’re not Enlightenment ideas, which is they kind of get conflated at the time. But more importantly than that, they say that God was only mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence. Well that’s a big deal. Okay. Laws of nature and nature’s God. The last paragraph of the declaration reads as a prayer. It says we appeal to the supreme Judge of the universe. Who’s the judge of the universe? Jesus Christ. It says in Revelation that Jesus will judge the earth on his throne.
This. So in the Declaration they were praying to Christ our Lord as a prayer very specifically. Thirdly, as I said on stage yesterday, Deuteronomy was by far the most Quoted book religious or non religious in the time of the founding when they were putting together Constitution, Constitution more than John Locke, more than Montesquieu, more than Blackstone. So the book of Deuteronomy which talked about laws, customs, traditions, it was Moses farewell address as he’s, you know, about to say goodbye, say hey, good luck in Canaan guys. Here’s how you should set up your form of government. But finally and most importantly, let’s look at actually what the founders said.
John Adams seamlessly said the Constitution was only written for a moral and religious people. It was wholly inadequate for the people of any other. The body politic of America was so Christian and was so Protestant that our form and structure of government was built for the people that believed in Christ our Lord. One of the reasons we’re living through a constitutional crisis is that we no longer have a Christian nation, but we have a Christian form of government and they’re incompatible. So you cannot have liberty if you do not have a Christian population. So that’s just, that’s just a surface level belief.
So then they’ll go to the First Amendment which is, has two, two parts of the First Amendment which get conflated. First of all, separation church and state is not in the US Constitution. That is a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1807 to the Danbury Baptist Convention in Massachusetts assuring them that the government would not come after the church. Okay? Which is the opposite of what they would say. However, that was then resurrected by the Warren Court and the Burger court in the 60s where they said, hey, you know, all of a sudden we’re now going to make this as if it’s the Constitution.
It does say in the Constitution too things which is the establishment clause and the free, free expression clause. The establishment clause is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What they were most worried about was a Presbyterian or a Anglican or a Quaker type religion taking over the federal government. Instead it was that there is not going to be a state run religion or a state run government. Did you know that one of the first acts of Congress was taxpayer funded Bible printing and distribution? Did you know that there are church services held in the Supreme Court building as late as the Jackson presidency in the 1820s? But going back to this idea of separation church and state, and again I could riff on this at ad nauseam because it’s just so ridiculous, right? Is that it’s not constitutional because you go a layer deeper, people that even say that, do you believe in separation of morality and state? Nobody does.
So all laws are reflection of morality and all morality comes from somewhere. There is no such thing as neutral morality. And we believe what the Founders believe because they put it in the halls of Congress, they put it in the Supreme Court, and they put it all throughout the country, which is that the decalogue, the Ten Commandments is the core morality of how a society and a civilization should exist. Right? The Ten Commandments of every person. And finally, and this is the kicker, if the Founding Fathers were not Bible believing church 10 Christians, why did they put Leviticus on the Liberty belt? Not John, not Psalms, not Proverbs, not Genesis, Leviticus.
Most Americans can’t spell Leviticus. Leviticus 25:19. Proclaim liberty throughout the land of which you are in it is one of the most sinister, most unsubstantiated lies that does not come up against any sort of academic scrutiny. This idea that Founding Fathers were a bunch of enlightenment common law Deists, the reason they hate it is because if they. The reason they must say this is that if we actually go back to our Christian roots and we go back to where we once were, it’s America’s best hope for revival and for a great future.
[tr:tra].
