Breif summary of cases (US) where this has been proved without merit:
that he is not a citizen of the Federal United States but a natural sovereign citizen of the United States not subject to the Social Security system"); similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous (WD Okl 1996) 933 F.Supp 1028; similarly US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; McDowell v. US (9th Cir unpub 6/17/97); McKeague v. The Corporate United States Govt of Washington DC (D. Haw unpub 10/9/97) 97 USTC para 50866; similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; similarly Industrial Devel. Bd of Tullahoma v. Hancock (Tenn.App 1995) 901 SW2d 382; similarly Wilson v. US (WD No.Car unpub 5/23/96) 77 AFTR2d 2489; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); similarly In re Gdowik (Bankr., SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff'd (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 80 AFTR2d 8254; (county recorders instructed not to accept this document for filing) Texas Atty-Gen Letter Op. 98-16 (3/13/98); Snyder v. District Court of Stafford County (D Kan unpub 4/8/96) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 9/27/96) 98 F3d 1350(t) (claiming to be "natural born free people" and "a state" and "of freemen character" and not a "federal emergency citizen"); Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141; similarly ("natural born free sovereign US citizen") Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812; similarly (claiming to be "one of the indigenous sovereign people" and of "a Freemen Character" and therefore not susceptible to any court except "only to common law jurisdiction and process" by his own "Peers") L.L. Russell v. Clark (6th Cir unpub 2/9/99); (claiming to be "a sovereign state" and thereby trying to remove his traffic cases to a federal court) People v. Glaser (10th Cir unpub 1/19/96) 74 F3d 1250(t); US v. Studley (9th Cir 1986) 783 F2d 934 (claiming to be "an absolute, freeborn and natural individual"); similarly T.M. Thompson v. IRS (ND Ind 5/22/98) 23 F.Supp. 2d 923; T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); similarly US ex rel Brailey v. Aldesman (ND IL unpub 2/23/89) aff'd (7th Cir 1990) 904 F2d 38 cert.den 498 US 897 (perp making this claim held to be too mentally ill to stand trial and was confined to psych. hospital); Fair v. CIR (6/16/94) TC Memo 1994-276 aff'd (9th Cir unpub 6/30/95) 76 AFTR2d 5724, 95 USTC para 50418 cert.den 516 US 1098 (claiming to be a "free person" or "free citizen" and not a taxpayer); (claiming to be a "Sovereign Man On the Land") Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub 6/18/98); Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders); (claiming to be a Sovereign and therefore "no longer under the jurisdiction of Title 26 USC or any other negative law.... Anyone who attempts jurisdiction over a Sovereign is subject to criminal penalties of ten thousand dollars and/or ten years in prison") Bombalski v. USA (WD Penn unpub 3/30/90); ("The Plaintiff is an American National and a State Sovereign and is not subject to the Federal jurisdiction of the United States. The Plaintiff has never been, to his knowledge, a 14th Amendment citizen or a resident of any state, statutorily defined as United States. ... The Plaintiff was, at the time of filing the action, a Sovereign in and over the Union State Republic of Arizona and is currently a Sovereign in and over the Union State Republic of Arizona...." C.L. Fisher v. Niemiec (D Ariz unpub 4/30/95); ("Contrary to plaintiff's subjective beliefs, Arizona is one of the fifty state which collectively comprise the United States of America.") Francis v. Rennie (D Ariz unpub 7/19/94); ("an individual freeman") Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338; similarly Scotka v. State (Tex.App 1993) 846 SW2d 790; similarly US v. Masat (5th Cir 1991) 948 F2d 923 cert.den 506 US 835 ("Masat's brief states he is a 'non-citizen' and a 'non-resident'. More specifically, Masat claims the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he is a 'freeman'. In light of the fact that Masat was indicted for tax evasion, appeared before the district court, and has offered this court no support for his lack-of-personal-jurisdiction contention, we find his argument frivolous."); similarly US v. Gardell (1st Cir unpub 5/6/94) 23 F3d 395(t), 73 AFTR2d 2075 cert.den 513 US 869; similarly Holker v. US (8th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 751; similarly US v. Schmitt (8th Cir 1986) 784 F2d 880; similarly Jensen v. US (D Mass unpub 3/1/84) 53 AFTR2d 1067, 84 USTC para 9283; similarly Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96); similarly Lebrun v. State (1986) 255 Ga 406, 339 SE2d 227; similarly Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547; similarly Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Powers (Okla.App 1996) 919 P2d 31; (sued to get declaration that he is "a Sovereign Freeman" and not a "slave of the United States or an American citizen or a US taxpayer") Busby v. US (MD Fla unpub 7/9/98) 82 AFTR2d 5950; ("as a Sovereign Individual now asserts absolute immunity from payment of federal income taxes to which ordinary mortals are subjected .... precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal cavalry -- Zero!") McKinney v. Regan (MD La 1984) 599 F.Supp 126, 55 AFTR2d 1509, 85 USTC para 9479 ; similarly US v. J.O. Steiner (9th Cir unpub 5/14/92) 963 F2d 381(t) ("a sovereign citizen of the state of California"); similarly US v. J.R. White (9th Cir unpub 12/20/90) 921 F2d 282(t) ("a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada"); similarly Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; (claiming that as a "free sovereign individual citizen" he could unilaterally revoke his own Social Security Number, and thereafter refuse to comply with drivers license laws) Hershey v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1995) 669 A2d 517 app.den 544 Penn 664, 676 A2d 1202; (claiming "she is an American Sovereign State Citizen not subject to federal income tax") In re Cambern (9th Cir unpub 9/29/95) 67 F3d 305(t), 76 AFTR2d 6816; (claiming total immunity from the state divorce court on the pretext that "Mississippi no longer possesses Sovereign state power, it is now the people of the area known as Mississippi who retain their individual Sovereign power." Appeals court said "We find that Mississippi still possesses sovereign state power and that the Chancery Court ... had jurisdiction ... [Appellant's] argument on this point is so totally and obviously without merit that no further discussion is necessary.") Carlock v. Carlock (Miss.App unpub 5/25/99); (referring to himself as "Sovereign Goods" and "un-a-lien-able rights claimant" and a "Freeholder of Inheritance", and further objects to the participation by any of the opposing attys and the judge because they are all "enfranchised creatures of the law" and "without standing in this court or any other court of this land!") R.E. Goode v. Sumner County Commissioners (D.Kan unpub 2/17/95);
(claiming that as a "citizen at common law" does not have to comply with motor vehicle laws nor can a county court hear a charge against him) City of South Euclid v. Carroll (Ohio App unpub 10/6/88) app.dism 42 Oh.St.3d 706, 537 NE2d 225; ditto T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92); ditto State v. Cooper (Tenn.Crim.App unpub 9/21/88); ditto (claiming "that, as a 'judicial power citizen', he is governed only by 'God and the common law of the Constitution' ... that he is exempt from the laws of this state") State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953; similarly (as a "citizen in party" and "a natural born free sovereign United States citizen" he does not have to comply with US laws) In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; ditto this was evidently a ploy used in April 1992 by Terry L. Nichols, later identified as an Oklahoma City bombing conspirator; a 1992 letter and a 1994 affidavit by Nichols to the same effect are found on the internet), US v. Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542; (claiming that as a "free citizen" he can ignore federal laws relating to logging in a National Forest) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; (similarly, as a "freeman" can ignore driver license laws) State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 885 P2d 426; ditto Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338; (similarly, as a "first class judicial citizen" thought he didn’t need to comply with drivers license laws) Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY unpub 5/11/98); (petitioning for a declaration that the perp "is no longer property of the US govt") Van Hall v. IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410; (pretending to have a "personal" Quiet Title to immunize against all legal responsibilities) State v. Cella (Mo.App 7/7/98) 976 SW2d 543; ditto Skurdal v. US (D Mt unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; (such a suit not possible) Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1995) 900 SW2d 370; (because perp is an American Indian) US v. Willie (10th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 1384 cert.den 502 US 1106; "I have news for [the] petitioner: Even such ... an 'unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic", proceeding under the 'Common Law of the United States, a Republic,' ... is bound, along with the rest of us, to pay the income taxes levied by that republic." McKinney v. Regan (MD La 1984) 599 F.Supp 126, 55 AFTR2d 1509, 85 USTC para 9479. But see, for instance, City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 ("We will consider Mr. Wisden's contention that the ... [traffic] court lacked jurisdiction to try him because his status as a 'free man' exempts him from the motor vehicle code because he did not consent to be bound by it. We address this issue only because it is frequently raised and should be finally settled. We reject his claim.... Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals. ... In order for our scheme of ordered liberties to succeed, we must all obey valid laws, even those with which we do not agree; a man cannot exempt himself from the operation of a law simply by declaring that he does not consent to have it apply to him.") {NOTE: One of the motives behind this and similar ploys is the childish notion that the crank somehow has the power to deny a court's (or a government's) jurisdiction over him or over his offense, and that he cannot be held accountable even for flagrant violations if he does not personally consent to being arrested, summoned, tried, etc. This is patently absurd. The long held principle is that the court (meaning the judge) is the one who decides on whether a case is within the court's jurisdiction (an error can be reviewed on appeal) and even both litigants by agreement cannot deprive a court of its appropriate jurisdiction; Home Insur. Co. v. Morse (1874) 87 US (20 Wall) 445; nor can both litigants by agreement confer jurisdiction upon the wrong court; Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia (1850) 49 US (8 How) 586; California v. LaRue (1972) 409 US 109.}
This will never work, the canadian court system has NEVER upheld this as far as i can see. You might convince a cop not to give you a ticket, but if they do, the judge will rule against you, 100%.
they were asking about ohip and referenced provinces though? so would that mean he just talked the cop out of it? what loop hole did he find and what areh the "common law" rights he refers to?im not oging to try this as i dont feel like getting raped by our judicial system, but still curious nonetheless
This will never work, the canadian court system has NEVER upheld this as far as i can see. You might convince a cop not to give you a ticket, but if they do, the judge will rule against you, 100%.
+1
Canada's Sovereign head of State is the Queen of England(Her long term rep here is the Gov General). I highly doubt any court in the Canadian Civil/Justice/legislative system would uphold otherwise. The US differs because they fought against the monarchy in the first place. Canada started to systematically seperate Britian starting in 1867 (British North America Act). Subsequent acts may provide for better insight into the definition of the terms used in Canadian rights articles but I don't think it is legally defensible position to claim sovereignty over our Queen.
Essentially I think US citizens citing such claims are using phrases in turn, meaning they are functioning as literalists, much the same way hard nose bible belters do. How is it fair or reasonable to state that someone of todays age can completely understand the context with which these very old articles are written.
Very interesting, especially since that happened in London ON.
Personally I don't think it is worth the hassle (all the time wasted when you get pulled over) if all you save is plate, licence, and insurance fees. Now if you also dodge income tax, property tax, etc, then call me a sovereign!
Common law Right to Travel - Encounter with the Police, London Ont
1989 325 IX Touring 
Linear Mode
