JUDGE SLAMS SOVEREIGN IDIOT INTO SUBMISSION UNTIL HE GIVES UP! Awesome Sovereign Citizen Shut Down!

[@howardsontz983]

$225.00 . That translates into 2250 empty aluminum soda cans the defendant would have to pick up by the side of the road and cash in at the local liquor store to pay off that fine.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

what a GREAT point howard! seriously..i am gonna use that in a video..LUV it!

[@vashuchiha117]

Wait that is seriously still a thing that can be done? Like legit it's still around?

[@UpnorthHere]

@@vashuchiha117 Yes, Michigan has a 10-cent deposit and return for some types of beverage containers sold at retail.

[@kali-wolf]

@@vashuchiha117 in Australia we have new recycling machines at the supermarket, but before then you could take them to a scrap yard. You know those places that'll take metal by weight and give you cash? Maybe "junk yard" is the term in the US?

[@vashuchiha117]

@@kali-wolf I know what it it is, just didn't know if getting paid to collect cans in the US was still a thing or not. Even if it's only pennies a can or what not, I could make some decent scratch from all the cans where I work.

[@AG-bp3ll]

This dude got a judge patient enough to tell him how every citation he made was wrong. I'm sure he learned nothing.

[@racingphotographer8251]

If he got Perkins or Simpson he'd have gotten days for contempt for interrupting him all the time.

[@lockhak33]

I sadly believe you're right that he didn't learn anything even though the judge was extremely patient with him and even tried to explain to him why he's wrong.

[@thegreenmanofnorwich]

Pity really. Mind you, I think that the judge was rather enjoying a moment to educate.

[@AdubsYT]

Awesome judge. Excellent communication even when he knows it isn’t getting across. Amazing patience.

[@ajm5007]

@@racingphotographer8251 This is an informal hearing. The usual rules do not apply, and the magistrate cannot find you in direct contempt the way a judge at a formal hearing can.

[@humpdayfitness9707]

One of the best dismantling of a sovcit argument that I’ve ever seen

[@OSGCourtWatch]

And SO politely done!

[@JLova82]

Except it wasn't

[@UpnorthHere]

@@JLova82 It _was_ dismantled, piece by irrelevant piece, shown to be "not in accord with the law", and dismissed as the nonsense it is, resulting in a finding of "liable". You could learn something from this... or not.

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@JLova82 ... wrong again. Man, you must love being wrong. Not a single sovcit has ever won a case regarding driving/traveling.

[@bonniecreighton4163]

This Judge is by far the BEST one I've ever watched who has to deal with these Sovidiots !!! Even I could follow what the Judge is explaining....clearly. Thank you Judge for the appropriate "schooling" in this context.🤣

[@wallyman292]

And he's not even a judge yet! Still a magistrate. He'll be a excellent one once he gets there though!

[@LittlelauraMJ]

He was fucking awesome at shutting down EVERY sovcit “argument”.

[@jaybingham3711]

Super solid and tidy. If you want a more animated, yet equally solid, performance try Judge Slaven on Eric Martin's moped case.

[@deathangel7335]

And he didn't take all day to do it! Wow.

[@skinsey85]

​@@wallyman292 Maybe you didn't meant it this way and were just trying to kindly correct the OP but this read like a patronizing and backhanded compliment to me 😅 Like you're talking about a little kid who wants to be an astronaut someday instead of a person who's probably accomplished more than this whole comment section and holds a position high esteem and respect. But also, he called himself a judge so I think it's ok for everyone else to use the title too.

[@sbpugs]

He's misciting and misquoting the law. Rodrigues v Donavan is 769 F.2d 1344, which means it's NOT a Supreme Court case. Those always are cited as ### US ###. The "F2d" indicates a lower court. And it says no such thing. Thompson v Smith is the Supreme Court of Virginia. 155 Va. 367 (Va. 1930). Not a US Supreme Court case. So it's only applicable in Virginia and doesn't say what Sov Cits say. Wan to know what a REAL Supreme Court case says? Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) We agree that the States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed. Automobile licenses are issued periodically to evidence that the drivers holding them are sufficiently familiar with the rules of the road and are physically qualified to operate a motor vehicle. [Footnote 15] The registration requirement and, more pointedly, the related annual inspection requirement in Delaware, [Footnote 16] are designed to keep dangerous automobiles off the road. Unquestionably, these provisions, properly administered, are essential elements in a highway safety program. Furthermore, we note that the State of Delaware requires a minimum amount of insurance Page 440 U. S. 659 coverage as a condition to automobile registration, [Footnote 17] implementing its legitimate interest in seeing to it that its citizens have protection when involved in a motor vehicle accident. The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom of movement. The court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."[12] The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: (1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation), (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment'sPrivileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").

[@OSGCourtWatch]

damn...way to go above and beyond!

[@sbpugs]

@@OSGCourtWatch I'm a retired lawyer and this is why Sov Cits can't get lawyers to advance their nonsense on their behalf. We know it's flat out wrong.

[@SeanKingeryHomes]

Wow, way to ruin the curve for the rest of us! Lol.

[@dragonflytoo]

😂​@@SeanKingeryHomes

[@sbpugs]

@@OSGCourtWatch Also, Sov Cits always cite the Virginia state court case as saying there is a right to travel by automobile. Which it DOES say. What their gurus intentionally leave out is the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH. The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L. R. A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942. Because of course the right if you want to call it that is not absolute. Do you think if I was in prison for murder I could be released by claiming I want to travel to San Francisco, and this jail cell is preventing that? It's all gibberish.

[@tedsperos1620]

I was shocked this started out with the defendant admitting his name was Roosevelt Williams. A true SovCit rarity. But then, everything fell into its proper idiotic place. 😁

[@OSGCourtWatch]

🤣🤣🤣

[@tyronnemoss]

Right 😂

[@TheSonicsean]

Rookie mistake. He's Roosevelt of the family Williams

[@buck9668]

"admitting his name was Roosevelt Williams" Yeah! What the hell's wrong w this guy, anyway?

[@buck9668]

Cuts way too many corners. Where are all the objections, arguments, interruptions, overtalking, and repeating himself over and over? So this is what it's come to. A sad commentary.

[@tanyapage9319]

This judge has done the absolute best I've seen so far at clarifying this situation. I am extremely impressed. Good job, judge!! It's about time.

[@SusanPearce_H]

Magistrate, not judge.

[@Burhanontheranch]

And he was under zero obligation to do so

[@JLova82]

He's lying or he doesn't know how his own [system] works nor how or why it stopped working.

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@JLova82 ....and yet there is not a single person who agrees with you.

[@JosieJo2000]

This was so beautifully done. What a classy takedown.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

💯👍

[@jens2old2care]

Accusing the judge of "not considering" the cases is just so disingenuous. He absolutely considered every dang one and explained why they didnt apply

[@carissaexplainsitall8]

What he means by “not Considering” is the judge isn't falling for his misrepresented cases. 😂

[@makeminetexas3494]

Boy is he gonna be shocked when his appeal is also unsuccessful.

[@JLova82]

His "explanations" are circular, the only thing that the [judge] knows or cares for is that he believes he has a "legal person" for the charge and is able to move forward on that presumption.

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@JLova82 ....are you on the spectrum? That doesn't even make sense. First, he is a magistrate... not a judge. Secondly, "legal person' is not a thing. The defendant identified himself clearly as the name in connection with the ticket. Why do you keep trying to play these infantile semantic games?

[@UpnorthHere]

@@HappyBuddhaBoyd Tbf: some sovcits attempt to debate whether the name in allcaps (on a DL or other legal documents) is a person or a corporation, or similar baloney. It doesn't LEGALLY MATTER. Yes, a corporation is a legal person and might have "the same name". No, it is not the living person caught driving in violation of the Michigan laws. Claiming otherwise should result in referral for 6 months of mental treatment.

[@thomasking9524]

This judge was amazing!! His communication skills were just wonderful. My new favorite judge!

[@ecpracticesquad4674]

I can't stand how smug the defendant is in his own ignorance.

[@aeromedical6776]

So I guess when this fool “travels” into someone else and causes severe damage or grave bodily harm, we’re all just SOL and should have been better insured. After all, his rights supersede ours.

[@don7294]

Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[@user-gh3ee5en3h]

Every........single.......one........of....them.

[@bjorkestra]

Already planning his appeal, which will inevitably fall flat when his cites are improperly used.

[@UpnorthHere]

@@bjorkestra Not only that, in an actual court, he can be cited for contempt for even trying to assert nonsense cases that are completely irrelevant.

[@johnharling5246]

He is a practising sovereign citizen This clearly is not the judges first rodeo with a sovereign citizen, I loved the way he dismantled his "legal" argument.

[@kinsley7777]

that was History of the SovCidiot in our Courts worthy

[@Ziegmont]

I agree completely @johnharling5246. And I'm bewildered as to why the AG's around the country haven't gotten together to create a uniform 'QuickReference' sheet highlighting these rebuttals to every BS argument the SovCitiots always bring up. It's not rocket science, it's simple. And it's costing the court systems far too much of their time and budgets. imho. 👍

[@UpnorthHere]

@@Ziegmont There are, in fact, many "legal notes", "articles", "reviews" and other treatises on "how to respond to a sovereign citizen", produced by law professors and other experts.

[@ricbelding9307]

I love that this judge told the nutcase "you have misinterpreted...". It was also great the he agreed with the "right to travel" while attempting to explain what that actually means.

[@JLova82]

The issue 's the man's standing, not whether or not he interpreted some private rule of the Bar "incorrectly."

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@JLova82 "Rule of the Bar"...??? WTF .... Still making up words and spewing nonsense, I see. LMAO

[@UpnorthHere]

@@HappyBuddhaBoyd It is sometimes so exhausting to try to illuminate any sort of actual law for "these people" to crawl out of their dark hole and come back to being useful members of society.

[@SkiBumMSP]

@@HappyBuddhaBoyd Yup, seems that "JLova82" clown is operating from a Crackerjack Box law degree!

[@randofromiowa]

Dude, its a ticket. Pay it, follow the rules, and move on🤦🏻‍♀️

[@ScottW-vz4bf]

He already spent his family’s welfare check on scratch offs and a mini bottle. His “genius” is all over the inner city, standing by traffic lights waiting to wash your car window. 😂

[@JLova82]

He's not necessarily protesting the ticket; he's protesting the form of court.

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@JLova82 ... no... he is being a moron and showing how uneducated he is of the law.

[@UpnorthHere]

@@JLova82 The "form of court" is as prescribed in Michigan law. If you're operating a motor vehicle on the roads in Michigan, you have implicitly agreed to be subject to the Michigan laws, as applied by police and courts.

[@Crazy_Cat_Lady777]

That guy is a total 🤡 and is completely ignorant. The judge knows his stuff.

[@racingphotographer8251]

every judge knows his stuff but they are under no obligation to be as patient as this one. Most would just say 'you're wrong' and if they don't shut up 'I find you in contempt'.

[@jjfarrell9349]

You can't have seen many 'sovereign citizens', this one was polite, respectful, and listened to what the judge was saying - it's rare to see any of those attributes in their behaviour, let alone all of them. The arguments were still clownish and ignorant, but at least he didn't present them like a clown.

[@TruBluYahoo]

Cop's facial expressions while defendant is talking are hilarious 😂

[@Antiluddite]

A prime example of how the dumber you are, the less you're aware of it.

[@ninjakkk]

It's so refreshing to see a SovCit run into a judge capable of responding to all of their federal court citations in such a thorough manner.

[@UpnorthHere]

And the federal statute. "Yes, if you were charged for any of the federal crimes in Chapter 2 of Title 18, that definition would certainly apply, but this is a Michigan court, under the MICHIGAN definitions, not federal."

[@Katrina-qs2rl]

Thorough and quick.

[@llaph]

Lol, the magistrate is just so polite and helpful in explaining to him how extremely stupid he is.

[@ajm5007]

How much we want to bet that as soon as he finds out filing an appeal means paying additional fees, he won't bother and will simply ignore the citation until he gets his license revoked and then gets his "automobile" impounded?

[@pamelalansbury94]

He has a license??

[@pamelalansbury94]

I think these people love being in court so he might pay for the appeal.

[@eaglesfan32]

So smug… so disrespectful. He gonna be mad when he finds out that if he files an appeal he’s gonna have to pay the fines up front, pending the outcome.

[@UpnorthHere]

Michigan has additional court fees for the district court appeal as well, whether he wins or loses (as if there were any actual doubt).

[@RoyLonsinger]

Another year, another sovereign citizen loses. They will never get it. Thanks OSG❤

[@OSGCourtWatch]

thanks roy!

[@kitcat770]

Yes they get it, they just think they can make up their own rules and laws

[@martinarden9705]

They only lose whenever the year ends with a digit from 0-9 inclusive. They win all the other times. They just need to find their year.

[@JLova82]

*You

[@drn13355]

The judges job isn't to "agree".

[@carissaexplainsitall8]

Obviously, 😂😂

[@aesops-ghost7756]

I love the energy and clarity the judge brings to the court.

[@SweetJackknife]

Finally, someone who fully breaks down the stupidity of the sov cit argument. Not that anyone will actually listen.

[@Private_NE_Man]

No one can be a sovereign citizen lol citizens are owned unless claimed 🤣

[@SugarTits716]

I listened!!! Of course, I'm a fiend for knowledge regarding any topic that catches my eye/ear/brain 😊

[@RoughThief]

​@@Private_NE_Man Generally, being a citizen is a net gain. You get hardly any additional responsibilities compared to a mere visitor, but gain a ton of advantages like being able to stay in the country indefinitely and gaining access to public services along with some additional rights. As for those nonsensical indigenous arguments: go ask the native Americans if they feel like they have more rights than regular citizens. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. They got shafted, hard. Alternatively ask the Japanese Americans if these "constitutional rights" actually mean anything when it comes down to brass tacks. So unless you have a revolutionary army at your back, you'll have to follow the rules of the respective domain's current ruling class. Cos they DO have an army at their back.

[@Private_NE_Man]

@RoughThief well natives ain't indigenous for a start. Also The UNITED STATES isn't America lol 😆 so as a national you do have more rights I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're misinformed.

[@RoughThief]

@@Private_NE_Man You're going to stupid yourself right into jail. Maybe even prison. If it was that easy to avoid laws, nobody would actually follow them. But go ahead, fight the law and watch the law win every single time. Almost like the system was designed to protect itself first and foremost. Not like you have achieved anything you could lose in this life and it's free entertainment for us.

[@TheIdiotsHaveTakenOver]

The smug attitude that this guy displays, while being totally incompetent, is what makes me cringe the most. It should be made law that judges can double all fines and penalties if someone decides to try and make sovcidiot arguments.

[@UpnorthHere]

Similarly, start charging $200 an hour for any additional police called to the scene of a traffic stop being delayed and extended by such sovcit nonsense.

[@TeddyShark3]

I will never understand the mentality of ANY extremist group but the simple mindness and entitlement of Sovereign Citizens is baffling. Thanks for providing interesting cases so regularly.😊

[@BlakeHelms]

It attracts people who want privileges without responsibilities as well as the selfish who think others should pay their way.

[@sharonamara9718]

I think some of the SovShitizens profess to be a SovShitizen because they don't want to pay yearly for a license or registration or insurance.

[@VictheChick]

The premise of this nonsense - jurisdiction issues, unfettered independence, bad/no hair (wink) etc. - appeals to people who, for whatever reason, instinctively brace against authority figures, and Sovcit pseudolaw sounds just legalistic enough to them that they think they've stumbled upon something special ​@@BlakeHelms

[@Megan-cd6sh]

If you look up the Dunning Kruger effect, it explains this phenomena and all other wackjobs like flat earthers and such really well.

[@VictheChick]

​@@Megan-cd6sh Yes! Dunning Krugper effect and "confirmation bias."

[@iowahank1]

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Birmingham, Alabama ordinance that prohibited citizens from holding parades and processions on city streets without first obtaining a permit. Not applicable to this case.

[@tomzambito359]

None of them ever are relevant.

[@mrhistorybuff]

Worse, that case was from the peak of the Civil Rights Era when police arrested a pastor for leading a congregation ON THE SIDEWALK to go protest for lacking a parade license. Some original sovcit probably did a word search and found the word "license" in it and tried to use it, now all of them grab the same case from the same bad sources. It is immensely insulting to those who fought against public discrimination and racism to try to spin this decision into permission to skirt personal responsibility, and it is a comical demonstration of how these fools have ZERO clue how precedent, or common law is created and applied.

[@tzvikrasner6073]

@@mrhistorybuff Given the white supremacist origins of the SovCit belief system, the misappropriation of a civil rights decision is very on-brand.

[@lordraydens]

@@mrhistorybuff the irony that he's a black man citing that will probably go well over his head

[@danij5055]

A SovCit tried citing this to Judge Simpson. Judge Simpson said he was very familiar with the case. It's a Civil Rights case. And he said the court takes offense to the SovCit trying to use it in this way.

[@paulverhage5625]

I always find it hilarious how most SovCits act all smug as if they know more than the judge. 😂 The judge even took the time to explain it to this doofus and he *still* thinks he's right.

[@joshuawidener8407]

Welcome to humanity as a whole

[@-Jethro-]

Officer Kellems wishing he was anywhere else.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

as would i jethro! as would i,.....

[@patriciaenglish1027]

😂😂😂. I know. He’s the best.

[@toppingclover7561]

A further waste of taxpayer dollars by this SovCit. Wasting time in court while the cop gets paid for sitting there instead of being out on patrol.

[@katiem9644]

This judge is incredible.

[@benandcullensoldchannel2087]

The magistrate did an outstanding job. I think even the Sovcit recognized that his ass was just handed to him (even though he wouldn’t admit that, I’m guessing he knows it)

[@firebird6522]

I doubt he knew it. Whenever things didn't go his way, he reverted to passive aggressiveness.

[@rborden3452]

Love how he really exposes the man's ignorance of the actual law. By forcing him to provide complete citations, it shows he doesn't understand or hasn't read any of this!

[@UpnorthHere]

It's sometimes amusing when sovcits quote things that include the original misspellings and grammatical errors, not to mention lack of common sense.

[@Map42892]

What an amazing judge. Literally explains legal citations, super respectful and patient, completely appeal proof

[@UpnorthHere]

The appeal from his finding results in a new trial, on the same nonsense, in the district court.

[@kat050107]

This clown is getting humiliated by this judge! It is BEAUTIFUL!!

[@realab2209]

Not to mention "Hendrick v. Maryland" 235 US 610 (1915) in which the Supreme Court stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that the states have the right to regulate the operation of all motor vehicles (private, commercial, or otherwise -- it doesn't distinguish) in the interest of public safety.

[@jessebanwell5705]

I love how the defendant keeps kind of laughing under his breath, like the judge is the idiot and not him. He misuses the word circumvent (of course) and he thinks an automobile is not a motor vehicle. Dude... Does it have a motor? Does it move from one place to another? This guy should be the spokesperson for the "stay in school" campaign.

[@rusty_from_earth9577]

Fortunately I use a biomechanical conveyance to avoid being oppressed by the INjustice system

[@jonathanmiller295]

You ride a bicycle?

[@andrewsalhany5665]

​@jonathanmiller295, I'm pretty sure they mean walking lol

[@hellboip7876]

The Dale pfp makes it even better

[@martinarden9705]

Fight the power, brother. Fight the power. Solidarity! ✊✊✊

[@robertkennedy5414]

@@jonathanmiller295 I was picturing the Flintstone car.

[@Ashamanic]

Thompson vs Shapiro says nothing about driver licences. It is possible that if one state refused to recognise the license from another state, that Thompson vs Shapiro would be one of the cars referenced when that law went to court.

[@CindyM372]

The smug smile the fool gave when he thought the Magistrate was going to fall for his upcoming nonsense and then it disappeared after every bit of his rubbish was dismantled perfectly 😂😂👏

[@dm1927]

What a waste of court time.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

it sure is...other than for OUR enjoyment!

[@kinsley7777]

@@OSGCourtWatch valid point 😂

[@dantownsend4246]

Unfortunately Tasers don’t work over the internet

[@BobBlumenfeld]

At 8:29, when the defendant "gives up," he's really saying that the judge is biased against his arguments, so there's no reason for him to continue arguing. Just because the judge counter-cites the defendant's script is no proof to him that he's wrong. It's just judicial prejudice. Cognitive dissonance at work.

[@racingphotographer8251]

he hasn't really given up he's backing down and planning his appeal. Only to lose again.

[@jjfarrell9349]

He doesn't give up, he just starts to focus on the appeal which he was already convinced he would have to make. These guys have a lot more available time than sense and competence.

[@amberlytheharpyqueen]

It makes me think of when I was 12 and arguing with my mom and I would say " you aren't listening!" And my mom would say " I'm listening, I'm just not agreeing with you" I learned a valuable lessen then.

[@UpnorthHere]

@@amberlytheharpyqueen I saw a good one in a Flat-earther discussion recently: "I'd love to agree with you, but then BOTH of us would be wrong."

[@lesliegc041]

This shows the unwillingness of these idiots to hear what the stuff they ramble on about isn't relevant. They get told very clearly what is actually the law and they refuse to accept it. That's truly idiotic.

[@bonniecreighton4163]

MEMO TO: Officer Kellems........if you are reading this Officer Kellems....just want to say "thank you" for your appropriate facial expressions during the duration of this entire proceeding because every one of us watching is doing the SAME THING!!🤣🤣🤣

[@OSGCourtWatch]

i THOUROUGHLY second this!

[@lesliemingo3688]

OMG This Magistrate is f'n Fire!!

[@karlgraber2025]

Best judge I ever seen with this nonsense a smart lawyer not acting like a judge

[@Heathen.Deity.]

I love the fact the Judge had just finished explaining how court precedents and citations are referenced, making clear he was using a “farcical example” of using a court in a completely different state… only for this sovcit to then try using a court ruling from a completely different state.😂

[@ryanr3071]

This is the best judge i have seen in a sovcidiot case. I love that he explained the right to travel and what it actually means. But i don’t expect this dude to except that cause, you know, narcissistic sovcidiot 😂

[@liesh7222]

Bless this judge!!! They should all be handled like this, very professional

[@georgeleslie7307]

The hubris on this doofus, even after the judge explains it in English. I guess he also thinks he has the right to operate an airplane wherever he wants?

[@firebird6522]

Don't give him any ideas!

[@robertkennedy5414]

that WOULD come under federal law.

[@pantarkan7]

I'll take a little exception to the judge's phrasing; the sovcidiot will not be telling people what the cases hold, he will tell you what he paid someone on the webbernets told him the case says; and "we" have voluminous examples of this being laughably wrong.

[@alalmquist9423]

No one has ever won their arguments in court.

[@UpnorthHere]

True, there is no record of any sovcit defense ending with acquittal. Yes, many are dismissed (for judicial economy). No, that is not because of their "winning" a nonsensical argument.

[@frankdebrouwer-leiden]

I love the face he guy makes at 16:24; he really thinks he has got the judge just where he wanted to. On appeal he will be shown to be sadly mistaken.

[@david5131971]

their citations never have anything to do with what they claim. never has a court ruled a driver's license. registration, or insurance requirement is unconstitutional

[@UpnorthHere]

And repeatedly ruled the exact OPPOSITE, e.g., Hendrick v. Maryland (1915)

[@bondbeansbond]

The cop is an entire meal.

[@rustynails8756]

I think the judge is having a great time, he sounds like a teacher at heart and likes teaching the law. Good stuff.

[@UpnorthHere]

When it's teaching a sovcit, you have to understand that it's a fool's errand with only a limited potential upside. They don't understand facts or logic, even if they are one of the few that can actually read at more than third-grade level.

[@courtneylove94]

The documents were not worth the electricity it took to scan them took me out 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@mandyr4213]

The Magistrate was spot on with his explanation. Your right to travel also means WALKING!🤣

[@UpnorthHere]

You have the (federal) right to travel in a motor vehicle too, just not as the driver, unless you also have the license, and the vehicle is registered, as required by every state.

[@mamoruisamu1]

Like watching a cat play with a one-legged mouse. Love the “and what was that case about?” as the defendant was reading the sovcit website out loud. 🤣

[@r-aandrew596]

There's always interesting new pronunciation of words they try to use - 'contraveyance' was the winner here.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

GREAT catch andrew!

[@ScottW-vz4bf]

I heard that and literally LOL’d! 😂 Dude is a walking, talking stereotype!

[@ryancomeaux1798]

My hats off to the people who are marketing this whole sov cit grift! They continue to sell a product that has a proven 100% fail rate! Yes they have gotten a share of dismals for various reasons, but not one single ‘win’ in court!

[@OSGCourtWatch]

master marketers!

[@racingphotographer8251]

gotta love how "logical" that sounds...so only CDL holders driving for work must follow traffic law and have insurance? I doubt that's even the case in Morocco...

[@LB-gz3ke]

I would like Mr. Roosevelt to explain how his automobile is not a motor vehicle. Is he Fred Flintstoning himself around with his feet? Does he have his car towed by a pair of oxen?

[@vasily2022]

Those who contribute the less to society waste the most of it's resources.

[@scanmead]

This is why cops should leave the debates for the court. Arguing at the side of the road is a waste of time. (This judge seemed disappointed the SovCit gave up so quickly.)

[@HasidicKaiju]

3:31 that smug face. He be like "GOT'EM!" No, no you didn't.

[@Nefertiti0403]

He’s showing his TRUE Color. Time and Time and a million times over 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@Spherex]

I absolutely love how the judge refused to let the SC stop giving him cases he was misinterpreting or cases he was told allowed him to drive without a license. And the judge completely demolished every single one of his supporting cites.

[@UpnorthHere]

If he brings an attorney to the appeal, NONE of those cases will appear, since no attorney would risk their career by putting such nonsense on the record, in contempt of court rules and ethical obligations.

[@alisong2328]

He's looking at his sovcit manual, full of cut and pasted paragraphs from various court cases. 😂 I love this magistrate!

[@joshuawidener8407]

Department of labor is a completely new one for me and I've been watching these idiots for years. Lol. Kudos!

[@alexg3348]

What a polite and very long winded way to tell a numpty that he is wrong; well done your honour! Nice job!

[@charlesgray8180]

Just love how these people grasp at every court case they can find to disprove what has been proven many times before.

[@Itsjandz105]

Of course he’s not operating in commerce bozo hasn’t had a job since 1991. Im so sick of seeing my tax dollars being used to pay for this fools foodstamps and section 8 housing.

[@VeldaGray]

So, if he wanted to “travel” in an aircraft he could just watch some KZbin videos and just rent an aircraft? It’s traveling, right?

[@DrBozoEinstein]

He has no intention of ever paying these fines. He will consume hundreds of more dollars of State resources to ignore and deny his responsibility. Someone that needs help financially is going to have to fight harder to survive because of this guy.

[@andreahoverson236]

These people are insane!! They should be fined for wasting everyone's time.

[@alisong2328]

3:34 His smug smile after the judge says "every court is bound by relevant supreme court rulings" is premature!

[@SugarTits716]

Notice the judge said the key word "relevant", regarding Supreme Court case rulings...LOL!!! "Relevant" is a word SovCidiots don't "comprehend" or "overstand" 😂

[@carla.p2795]

There's no point talking to these sovcit fools! They know nothing so judges need to just ignore them and carry on!

[@oh2button]

Ignorance? Poor education? Too sore from “cherry-picking?” There should be an additional fine for wasting the court’s and the officer’s time.

[@David-h8p2x]

Someone had high hopes when they gave the defendant his name. No more hopes for greatness after this video😂😂

[@traceynewman738]

Love this judge, smart unlike the guy talking nonsense. He is not very smart at all. A little bit of information, can be a dangerous thing 😂😂

[@patriciaenglish1027]

The cop’s eyes & expression while the idiot quoted ‘law’. 😂😂

[@undecidedmiddleground5633]

This judge is so me in his situation. I LOVE teaching people how the world works.

[@sharonamara9718]

Magistrate David Heiss is FABULOUS. Imagine this Sovereign Shitizen with probably high school education going against a very smart Magistrate who is very well versed in the law.

[@jeffthornton6998]

Good luck with that appeal. That Shuttlesworth case has already been thoroughly refuted by Judge Simpson; so he shouldn’t waste his time.

[@TheDanielsherer]

An important point, one that went unstated, is that the defendant must post a bond, in the amount of the fines (so, same as paying the fines) in order to be able to file an appeal. If he wins, he gets his bond back. If he loses the appeal, he probably will incur additional court costs. Either way, what SovCits usually do is refuse to pay the fine, thinking they will win on appeal. Result? They lose the right to appeal, and get ADDITIONAL fines/arrest warrants. Pretty much what they deserve.

[@rosewar52]

the amount of dumb is limitless apparently

[@EqSlay]

I got trapped in a conversation with a sovcit. It was really hard to disagree respectfully. This video has helped!

[@loganphillips5935]

I’d bet this judge was a law professor at one point

[@OSGCourtWatch]

i would wholeheartedly agree with you logan!

[@laskey2175]

It's like trying to explain the law to a fish.

[@UpnorthHere]

At least a fish might have gone to "school."

[@ninasage7735]

I’m getting sick of these guys. They want to live here and get benefits but not be responsible to the law.

[@rockfyre3095]

100 points to the Judge's house!

[@maryphelps7381]

If he takes the " Moter " out , he can " Travel " all he wants in his Automobile . 😅

[@artie218]

Say it loud to these geniuses , they will always lose

[@angelonorman3426]

How come he didn't claim to be the legal representative of the entity and why isn't his last name Bey? He has me all messed up. 😂

[@3quartersbull4]

That judge should teach a class to other judges.

[@UpnorthHere]

This video is, itself, highly educational and can be widely referenced.

[@DaveyCrockett1]

It would help if people knew that the Supreme Court is the Law, but states are allowed to add to and not take away from rulings. So states can define what traversing in their state means.

[@valerie362]

Oh man, now I've got a dilemma! Judge Slaven was my favorite when it came to sovcitiots. He made my toes curl. This Judge is giving him a run for his money to be my Lawtube crush.

[@OSGCourtWatch]

🤣🤣🤣

[@PrinceJediMaster]

One would think after seeing these arguments fail over and over that they would just follow the laws.

[@jonathanmiller295]

The citation to a case published in F.2d had to be a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. It could not have been a U.S. Supreme Court opinion because those opinions are published in three other publications, none of which are cited as “F.2d.”

[@UpnorthHere]

Not only that, appellate decisions found in F.2d reports might only apply in THAT circuit and may be contradicted by opinions on similar facts in other circuits.