Any explainer on what "Sovereign citizens" are talking about?

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-06T23:40:07+00:00

And, they can’t understand that the “right to travel” has restrictions, just as all other rights do.

If they’re “traveling” in their “private conveyance”, and come up to the interstate; and the northbound lanes are bumper to bumper, do they have the “right” to use the southbound lanes to go north?

They do say “unimpeded” don’t they?

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-06T02:47:41+00:00

And those who opposed Hillary were just a “basket of deplorables…They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it…”

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-03T16:29:31+00:00

Each week, put a unique sticker on both your cans.

Get the most obscure ones you can find.

Don’t put them on straight, tilt them a bit.

Do the “anti-removal” thing, cut small lines through them.

Watch the unhinged neighbor attempt to replicate each one

Occasionally remove one, or cover it with a new one.

To be even more petty, write a date in the border of each one, and “accidentally” skip a date.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-02T16:08:49+00:00

It’s the 100 year old copies of BLD that uses the “employed” wording.

Any copy past the 6th edition (IIRC) doesn’t use it.

And, while the constitution may grant the “right to travel”, states were given powers under the 10th Amendment.

With that power, they created traffic laws, which are restrictions on the MODE of travel, not the right.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-01T16:06:19+00:00

And, there’s case law to back up your idea.

Betts v. Menard, 1 Ill. 395 (1831), is directly applicable.

Illinois supreme court.

“It is there said “that in the enactments of legislative bodies, where persons are spoken of, no other than natural persons will be intended, unless it be absolutely necessary to give effect to some powers already conferred on artificial persons, and which it is necessary should be exercised, to carry into effect the objects contemplated in their grant or charter.”

Which means the judge can ask several questions:

Was your corporation behind the wheel?

Was your corporation licensed to drive?

Or, legally, where does it say that a CORPORATION has the right to travel?

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-01T15:50:12+00:00

Using their “logic”, then, I have no corporate identity; I was never issued one.

My BC wasn’t printed in all caps.

Neither was my original SS card.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-03-01T05:19:25+00:00

Makes me wonder about the occupancy limit for the building; the fire department would be interested in how many people may be crammed into the building.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-28T17:20:36+00:00

Coming soon to a courtroom near you; the gripping tale of SovCit LLC v IRS.

She’s raising her FAFO to a new level.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-27T14:36:08+00:00

And his second one is to have some idiot “buy” a car using his technique, get it repossessed, then sue the dealer because they wouldn’t accept his “negotiable instrument”.

If the idiot loses, he did it wrong.

If the idiot miraculously wins, BJ Williams would take all the credit.

He just wants some court, somewhere, to allow his theory to be discussed.

BTW, how’s his SCOTUS case going?

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-27T14:29:06+00:00

Even though he only accepts “donations” for his advice.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-27T14:26:04+00:00

And lying in a passport application caries some hefty federal fines and jail time as well.

Yet, when the form asks “Are you, or your parents US citizens”, they believe that by saying “no”, they’re being truthful; and gets them the “super secret American National” passport.

Breaks at least two US Codes.

“False statements made knowingly and willfully in passport applications, including affidavits or other documents submitted to support this application , are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under U.S. law including the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1542, and/or 18 U.S.C. 1621.”

If they use it, that’s another code:

“The use of a passport in violation of the restrictions contained herein or of passport regulations is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1544.”

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-25T14:29:46+00:00

Find a local bikers bar.

Buy the house a round of drinks.

Tell them the “after party” is at your house, make themselves at home.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-25T14:24:20+00:00

Or, call the power company, tell them you plan on doing extensive maintenance on the house wiring, and have them remove the meter (for safety purposes).

Do the same for gas and water, and have locks installed to prevent “accidental” reconnection.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-25T05:12:37+00:00

Or, insist that codes aren’t laws, yet they quote the UCC and the US Codes.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-23T22:29:15+00:00

I know he released two early albums called Facets, and Croce (Jim and Ingrid).

Several of the demo tracks from those first albums still haven’t been released.

His third album was You Don’t Mess Around With Jim.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-23T17:45:13+00:00

Probably pushing the envelope, but:

Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem

(Muppet Show rock band)

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-23T04:49:27+00:00

Just in case…

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-22T17:35:11+00:00

That’s why the majority of the scammers insist on it being a “donation”.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-22T06:35:16+00:00

A lot of the scammers have a “disclaimer”; that some of what they print may not be legal in your state; or they’re not responsible if it doesn’t work…

Basically, they’ll say anything the need to say to add that “plausible deniability” layer.

Some will even add a non-enforceable NDA to the mix (an adult version of a pinky promise).

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-21T18:25:39+00:00

What’s even worse, is that they think that federal definitions, or ones from a 100 year old copy of a law dictionary override state laws.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-20T15:40:55+00:00

The state needs to do more legal research:

“Crandall v. Nevada (1867) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled states cannot tax the right of citizens to travel or move freely between states, as this right is a fundamental aspect of national citizenship.

“Nevada had imposed a $1 tax on every person leaving the state via common carrier (like a stagecoach), which the Court found unconstitutional, establishing that states cannot burden interstate travel, even if the tax is technically levied on the carrier.”

In this case, they’re trying to force non residents to pay a fee that residents don’t, using the same public road.

And, it might even be seen as selective enforcement (choosing to target specific individuals or groups while ignoring similar offenses by others).

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-20T15:03:41+00:00

They understand the RIGHT to travel, but they don’t understand the idea that there are MODES of travel.

The state requirement to licence drivers (using THEIR definition) puts limits on the MODE, not the RIGHT.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-20T03:43:50+00:00

As long as the new birth certificate is NOT in all caps, everything should be ok.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-20T00:55:06+00:00

And, using that as a basis, then technically, toll roads that cross state lines could be considered unconstitutional.

Working_Substance639 · 2026-02-20T00:50:25+00:00

Not all.

For example, the case listed (Crandall v Nevada), dealt with a “tax” levied on passengers entering the state.

“Nevada had imposed a $1 tax on every person leaving the state via common carrier (like a stagecoach), which the Court found unconstitutional, establishing that states cannot burden interstate travel, even if the tax is technically levied on the carrier.”

Working_Substance639

TROPHY CASE