Exposing the Myth – Sovereign Citizens – Lansing v Smith

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, (NY) 6 How416, 14 L. Ed. 997].
What the Sovereign Citizens forget is that the people refers to the collective not the individual. This is clear in the Supreme Court case Shively v. Bowlby – 152 U.S. 1 (1894) which cites Lansing v Smith

In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the Crown and Parliament  of England in lands under tidewaters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, 21; Gould v. Hudson River Railroad, 6 N.Y. 522; People v. Tibbetts, 19 N.Y. 523, 528; People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N.Y. 461, 467; Langdon v. New York, 93 N.Y. 129, 144, 154-156; Mayor New York v. Hart, 95 N.Y. 443, 450, 451, 457;

If the case had been as the Sovereign Citizens claims, then the owner of the land would have had a viable case and would have been entitled to compensation. Until the “Sovereign Citizens” accept that their citations to the sovereignty of the people does not refer to the individual, they will continue to lose their cases in court.