The Sovereign Citizen movement cites, in support of their beliefs that they need no driver license or registration for their motor vehicle, a case which was decided in 1905 when automobiles had barely entered into US lives.
Speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus are not arrestable offenses.
Source: Christy v. Elliot,216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035, 216 Il. 31 – 1905
This is a case in the State of Illinois. While I have yet to find the case online, several cites cause me to doubt the interpretation given to this case. And the more I have read the more I believe that they have grossly misunderstood the case. One also does not really see the case cited in any recent court cases, which leads me to suspect that rulings have not gone the way of the Sovereign Citizen.
Anthony Troy Williams was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for driving on a canceled, suspended or revoked license, second offense and convicted by a Jury to 6 month jail and a $2500 fine.
Williams argued that he has a constitutional right to travel and that therefore any attempt require him to possess a driver’s license would be unconstitutional. The court, observing that the right to travel does not mean the right to travel using any and all means stated:
This Court agrees with Appellant’s contention that he enjoys a fundamental right to freedom of travel. See Booher, 978 S.W.2d
The court in Booher found:
His right to travel within this state or to points beyond its boundaries remains unimpeded. Thus, not only has the appellant's right to freedom of travel not been infringed, but also, we cannot conclude that this right is even implicated in this case. Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel.]
However, Appellant’s right to travel has not been infringed upon by the requirement by our legislature that an individual have a valid driver’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. Id.
at 955-56. The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. See id.
at 956. Arguments identical to Appellant’s have been addressed and dismissed by this Court several times. See, e.g., State v. Paul Williams
, No. W2009-02179-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2539699, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 23, 2010), perm. app. denied
, (Tenn. Nov. 12, 2010); State v. David A. Ferrell
, No. M2007-01306-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2425963, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 7, 2009), perm. app. denied
, (Tenn. Feb. 8, 2010); State v. Bobby Gene Goodson
, No. E2001-00925-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1751191, at *3-4 (Tenn. Crim. App, at Knoxville, July 29, 2002), perm. app. denied
, (Tenn. Dec. 23, 2002). Appellant is not entitled to relief.
The Franklin County, N.Y., sheriff responds to the “Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury”:
Those ‘rude public servants’ tell us to stop harassing them with faxes. ROTFL
Hat Tip: Gatsby at the Fogbow
Funny… Totally unsupported by any legal arguments. Trying to argue that under common law, they have a right to arrest a person and serve a warrant. Fascinating failures to understand the law in these matters. This matter came from the “common court”, ROTFL.
As to failure to understand HRS 1.1
§1-1 Common law of the State; exceptions. The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of Hawaii in all cases, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the State, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage; provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State. [L 1892, c 57, §5; am L 1903, c 32, §2; RL 1925, §1; RL 1935, §1; RL 1945, §1; RL 1955, §1-1; HRS §1-1]
REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carolyn Colvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 03/02/2014)
Orly’s reading abilities continue to trip her up, for example
In support of allegation 2, Plaintiff submitted Opposition Exhibit 1, SSA’s November 16, 2012 FOIA response to a different FOIA request for Mr. Bounel’s information. In this response, SSA states that “the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) restricts disclosure of the [requested] information.” Plaintiff argues that this letter proves that SSA has located records for Mr. Bounel. However, the November 16, 2012 FOIA response does not state SSA located any records for Mr. Bounel. In addition, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge a material difference in the 2012 FOIA request and her April 26, 2013 FOIA request, which caused SSA to respond differently to the requests.
Plaintiff provides no additional relevant evidence to support her FOIA allegations. Opposition Exhibits 2-3 include copies of records of a deceased individual’s SSN, who Plaintiff asserts should appear in SSA’s records immediately before the records of Mr. Bounel. However, Plaintiff did not request the records of this individual in her April 26, 2013 FOIA request. Further, the existence of this individual’s records does not prove the existence of records for Mr. Bounel. In addition, Opposition Exhibit 4 is an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions from an unrelated case, which is irrelevant to this case.
2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
In other words, since the acts of the legislature of Florida has dealt with the grand jury, and since the Federal rules also provide for the Grand Jury, there is clearly no foundation for a common law grand jury in Florida.
Patrick Cranwill, <<address removed>>, addressed
the board in regard to the Common Law Grand Jury
He stated five citizens were in attendance to speak regarding this subject and questioned if it was possible to yield their time to just one speaker. Chairman Zalak concurred. Mr. Cranwill presented a 6 page handout for the record entitled, “Writ of Mandamus the Common Law Grand Jury for Marion County, Florida”. Sean Peete, State Road 19, Salt Springs, referred to the Writ of Mandamus, which he read, in its entirety, into the record.
In response to a question by Commissioner Bryant, Mr. Minter advised that the United States (US) and Florida Constitutions provided for Grand Juries, noting there was no authority in either Constitution that allowed for a group of citizens to appoint themselves as a Grand Jury. He referred to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(a), which stated in part, “the US Court appoints a Grand Jury for Federal Court” and
Florida Statute (FS) 905.011, which stated in part that “Grand Juries were appointed in the same fashion as a Trial Jury”. Mr. Minter clarified that the only Grand Juries recognized in Florida were those that were appointed according to Florida Statutes..
Clerk Ellspermann advised that the organization recently approached him with regard to their requests, noting by the authority of Florida law he could not provide them space at the Marion County Courthouse. He noted the Boards legal advisor to the Grand Jury was the State Attorney.
(Ed. Note: This matter was again addressed later in the meeting.)
- County Attorney Minter addressed previous comments regarding the Common Law Grand Jury, noting some of those organizations were made up of citizens who felt disenfranchised with their trust in government. He stated it was important to help citizens understand that government, at the State and local levels, was there for them and was responsive to their requests.
(Ed. Note: This matter was again addressed later in the meeting.)