Debunking the Myth – Sovereign Citizens – State Citizens and Immunity

The Sovereign Citizens often cite the following:

“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract.” see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”

CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

So far, the first citation cannot be found online and Dred Scott v Sandford does not contain it. In Cruden v Neale, which is not a Supreme Court case but rather a Superior Court Case in Wilmington NC, decided in 1796. The date is important since the issue involves the question of citizenship during the transition from British Rule to US Rule. The poorly documented ‘decisions’ which appear to be either invented or erroneously referenced, continue to show the lack of foundation behind the Sovereign Movement.

The closest Dred Scott comes to supporting their position is, when it talks about the free negro.

When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

Of course, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to, once and for all, lay to rest these issues.

And so the myth of the “Sovereign Citizen” continues to be shaken because of its poor foundation in law, history and fact. It is this kind of ignorance that guarantees the failures of the “Common Law Grand Jury”.

If the “Common Law Gran Jury’ wants to succeed, it has to show that it can exist outside of the statutes and rules which indicate that only the Attorney General may bring cases to the Grand Jury. Until they accept the concept of Standing as an intricate part of our Constitution, they will continue to fail. Until they accept that the right to petition is not the same as the right to have the petition being granted or heard, they will continue to remain irrelevant.

I am all in favor of an informed public, correctly informed, who involves itself in matters of public policy, but the “Common Law Grand Jury” appears to be nothing more than an attempt by some disgruntled people to have their cases (re)-heard in court.