If you guys enjoyed this video make sure you hit that like button and subscribe don't miss!!!!
Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned By Police!
CategoriesPolice Abuse & Harrasment
Local Blogger
Blogging locally
CategoriesPolice Abuse & Harrasment
If you guys enjoyed this video make sure you hit that like button and subscribe don't miss!!!!
Why do these idiots go out of their way to taunt police? They should try this in Russia & see what happens. They will be crying for mommy.
But they’re just standing their ground against the police state. Just because he is exercising his rights does not mean he is a sovereign citizen.
They have low self esteem.
Its because they think they know the law and need clicks for their monetized channels
Trayshaun Young I
hopefully I’m being dumb and didn’t catch you’re joke, but it is the law for you to give an ID and proof of insurance when driving. You cannot say no. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
ahh mathew stud lord is a snowflake it has no comprehension in life
even better when they do not claim to be part of American the first amendment is not covered for law breakers…
i still cant get over this snowflakes handle stud lord oh please what a damn joke that snowflake needs to crawl back to its safety corner wrap up in its blanky and suck a binky
These people are such idiots!!!!!
All of you are actually uneducated sheep….. They are closer to be on the right track than you people are
Tim Nordstrom PATHETIC
They are a homosexual protest gruop they act like most queers do
Tim Nordstrom no they aren’t. They have very misinformed views of radicated laws from cenuries ago. Most of them aren’t any where near intelligent as they like to think and it shows in every video.
Sime bag cop baiters deserve everything they get. A fine of $25k would help cops do their job without interference.
It would never get paid
If ya don’t like it here, if ya don’t follow our laws, leave.
The yelling Criminal On Patrol (COP) is the one who needs to leave.
And they film themselves being such lowlife – send them to Syria if they do not like it here
richarddrb no, send them to russia. They will get their asses kicked
Yeah i think syrian cops will get them but the difference is that they send them to die because it’s easier for them
“You don’t run the law, you just enforce it.” what the hell does that mean?
Bruce Kingfield exactly what it means, they can’t pick and choose laws, they have to enforce all laws, they can’t enforce laws based on feelings you total soyboy????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Charlie Cross That was just a legitimate question.
Calm yourself.
Filming is legal, even during arrests. Deal with it.
Describe “running” vs enforcing the law.
Watching those police beat the living hell out of these jerks would be a great dvd. Only problem is I would watch it everyday.
Ok Albert Einstein. I hope you are not one of these imbeciles. They call themselves sovereign citizens and then think they can do anything they want. You don’t get much more stupid than that.
Robert Brucefan I would pay good money to buy a DVD of the dummys picking a fight with the cops and a follow up interview with both of them.
That would be great. Let’s get ready to rumble!
I’d buy one for all my friends to watch.
It’s the law to identify yourself to police when asked. These morons do all they can to aggravate cops with this nonsense. Quoting the Articles of Confederation which was no longer valid with the signing of the Constitution is ridiculous.
Garry Fender My apologies. I stand corrected on 24 states with stop and ID laws. It still requires RAS of a crime about to, in the process of commiting, and have been committed to require showing ID.
Traffic stops are a whole different matter. Yes people are required to have license, registration, and insurance. Too many people claiming otherwise are constantly referring to outdated material and somehow ignore numerous precedents in the Supreme Court.
I was merely referring to stops outside of a vehicle.
Gary Fender …assumption…
Garry Fender, well said.
Wow officer at 3:30 good job of deescalation. And getting mission accomplished.
John Bradley I wanted them beaten to a pulp.
Yeah apperently top officials from the USA are coming here to the UK to get some Policing tips on how not to shoot.
That was a Good Cop Bad Cop routine down to a T
LightningPete you maybe correct. Just didn’t think he was there the whole time.
John Bradley z
If you are a SC and the laws don’t apply to you…then how do you claim constitutional rights?
Stop being rational and logical. Stop it. Stop it right now.
not quite. the “laws” as you described.. are not laws at all my friend.. they are codes and statutes.
SC’s only claim laws they like apply to them. Laws they don’t like either don’t apply, are made invalid by another law they do like, or only apply to their ”corporate fiction name” and not them as an actual person(?!!). That’s the schtik they normally use.
IF YOU ARE SAYING DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN LEATHAL WEAPON 2 AT THE END, RIGHT IN THE FUKIN HEAD!! WHICH THEY ALL DESERVE
First, I have seen several videos of sovereign citizens, I wouldn’t label any of these as sovereigns.. Also, several comments stating if you don’t like it here or the laws, then leave.. Well, the fact of the matter is this that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NO “law either at the federal, state or local levels trumps the Constitution… And to label, those who value the actual law of the land as idiots etc, is very sad….
The Constitution has nothing to do with Driving, read a book some time, it is a Privilege not a Right to drive.
Uhh, LOL Why dont you read my comment and the title of the video,, That will bring it all together for you… Secondly, There have been 20+ Supreme Court rulings that uphold the fact that unless in a commercial driving setting, that there is no requirement for normal citizens to obtain or be required to have a drivers license.”The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
Lastly, how did driving come into your response, I did not mention it… Glad you did though! 🙂
There is a little reading for you, education never ends 🙂
i wish cops would just start arresting these idiots
less talk, more tazer
Yes, you should be tasered for you ignorance…..
James Barnes What ignorance? I don’t see any ignorance from him.
…shut up James…it’s fuckwits like you that should make roadside sterilization legal….
I agree with rick , needs more tazering ….the first one should get it in the face !
What waste of public time and money.
If someone claims sovereignty it should immediately be send to jail and fine 10k for disrespect and clear incapacity to live in society.
Jail 10k fine for wasting honest people time. Don’t want to follow rules, so don’t drive and don’t ask for government help.
Sick people trying to take advantage of the system.
Slobberin citizens: providing impromptu comedy since way back when. Forever, even. 😀
So….how is it the first guy got owned? He was lawfully driving around, stood up for his rights since the officer didn’t have any type of proof that he had committed a crime, the officer got pissed because the guy wasn’t rolling over for him and threw a fit. So, again, how did the driver get owned by police?
EDIT: and BTW…standing up for your rights isn’t being a sovereign citizen. A sovereign citizen believes that they aren’t a citizen of a city/county/state/county and that the rule of law set by the city/county/state/feds don’t apply to them.
James Barnes Wow triggered much. I have a job pay my bills and taxes also. BTW, you think your the only one who pays into the welfare program. The amount you pay for the program is around 5 dollars a year, just in case you thought you actually paid for each individual person on welfare. Before you tell someone to learn the law, maybe you need to learn to spell.
+free in christ you are incorrect. Google “are you under custodial arrest immediately when pulled over” and you will find any number of articles saying that you are not.
Marcia Purse Looking up custodial arrest on Googgle brings up articles that some say you are some say you aren’t and most of the articles are from 2015 or earlier. I looked up ‘Custodial Arrest’ on an online law library and it is defined as being ‘ Detained’. It is not being under arrest but it doesn’t mean your free to go either. Being detained means the Officer is conducting an investigation with all parties involved for whatever reason said party was stopped. If, like the guy in the video, your driving you by law have to have a valid drivers license and insurance and refusal to show either can result in going from being detained to being under arrest.
These morons who say they are not United States citizens should be dropped off on an uninhabited island somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean and left to rot, they have less IQ than my shoe size. I want to see more episodes of windows smashed, 50,000 volts tasing and the more squealing like a little girl the better!!
One wonders why these videos are originally posted. Do these SCs actually think it shows them in a good light?