Sovereign Cit. Makes Nice Argument in Court - Still Wrong

Sovereign Cit. Makes Nice Argument in Court – Still Wrong

A Sovereign Citizen makes a good attempt to get his suspended license ticket dismissed. He still fails. I give this gentleman props because he comported himself well and kept a professional demeanor. He did make a couple of good points. However, he misunderstands process and procedure and many of his arguments were dead on arrival. I break down this in-court hearing and turn it into a teachable moment so that we call can learn a little more about the law.

If you have videos you would like me to analyze on YouTube, email me the video here: [email protected]

You can find me and follow Joe Pometto Law here:

Website:
Twitter:
Facebook:
Instagram:

Donate:

PayPal: [email protected]

Thank you for your support!

This work, “Sovereign Cit. Makes Nice Argument in Court – Still Wrong” is a work based on “David Jurist Arraignment for Driving on Suspended License” by FreeKeene and used under a reuse allowed license with the original work located at the below link:

The information provided on this YouTube channel does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; Joe Pometto Law and its members do not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.

Viewers of this video and YouTube channel should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, viewer or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this video and YouTube channel or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and channel authors, contributors, contributing law firms, and/or their respective employers. The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual creators creating in their individual capacities only – not those of their respective employers, or Joe Pometto Law/Pometto Law LLC as a whole. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this video and channel are hereby expressly disclaimed. The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

we are going to take a look at a video where an individual named David from the free Keene movement in New Hampshire he he fights a traffic ticket at a preliminary arraignment he was cited for driving on a suspended license and he's going into the arraignment court and he's going to use a couple of arguments to attack this driving on a suspended license charge I'm going to give you a legal analysis point out the good things he did the bad things he did and hopefully you will take away and learn something from this video now before we get into the video a few housekeeping measures number one my videos are here to provide commentary plus a video if you just want to watch the video of the incident there are other channels please check those channels out van bay on to is one of them he is great also if you have videos that you would like me to analyze send them to me I'll put an email in the description there's an email in my About section send me those videos out analyze any of them as long as I think they're good videos I'll analyze them put them up on YouTube we can watch have fun and learn from that now let's get to the video please subscribe like and share it incentivizes me to make more videos and gets me a higher ranking on YouTube let's go thank you so this goes we're not gonna have time to do one person so both in this room so the only reason cuz somebody else's case is in garudasana report I understand what you're saying but if he doesn't want me to record then I'll stop but she's a recent in here so if you like to go outside we can do outside I'll do is I gotta get to her okay so this is arraignment today so we're going to do is thank you it's a violation complaint wish that her plea yeah bearing this concern okay I can start registration five six for you YJ on a way with nine and Hillsboro up to Arkansas license had been suspended by the director of Motor Vehicles on September 17 2016 4 villiage who here you entering a plea to this I hit me instead probably served which point out no sign and they left a with the probable cause or any other science I don't know this is your emotions aside if you made three different – let's break those down process so what do you mean by that well do your chore day of the crime we're supposed to be given some kind of a v8 complaint something now they explained to mr. stride when I spoke to on the phone this is preliminary hearing today people assert a complaint by Detective McGill opinion prior to the hearing was born earlier you swore to complaint has been issued to the court therefore it was properly charged any complains need to be provided to the defendant so that they can prepare a defense Jesus okay mr. Parsons signature you're as you know if you're artists a chief of police worth getting me in square to replace mr. Tate your favorite I've got a violation of compromise won't you try the police department there's a charge but what is the cause and we seen the nature what's probable cause finding my finding of probable cause you've been arraigned any complaint will be scheduled for trial and the court will determine whether or not you're guilty of this defense or not this is directly approaching other speakers in fact always happy to see his theory once released uh $1,500 personal recognizance bail by a bail Commissioner cost road to Peter that all relevant boxes have been checked refrain from excessive use of alcohol and to pray for driving a motor vehicle to be a valid driver's license what you want to save up your appeal yes yeah we're outside the Hillsboro district court with David who was just arraigned on a charge of driving while suspended I've been through a revocation or suspension we were trying to to challenge certain things in there and yes the service of process the night that I was pulled over kidnapped booked I was never given a ticket or an affidavit or anything from the officer just told you a show up here yeah just wanted to show up and never receive any things I challenged I moved the court to dismiss for defective service of process and also failure to prosecute and failure to state a valid cause of action they didn't even give you a sign to complain until today right right right actually it started out as a blink complaint and then Sunday yeah that's my complaint yes and then I I brought that up and so they bring one over signed and it's it's a signature is different from the arresting officers I'm like what's this about and they said that the the Chief of Police could sign it for the officer so the emotions were denied I didn't move the court to produce a written findings effect pollutions of law 207 take that under advisement yes and what does that mean where the judge will actually like explain his decision write a summary yes right now I'm summary judgment you shouldn't sing that yes trial dates when uh each trial is yes much for you alright so stay tuned very good let's go get some lunch okay and that was our video of David before the judge in New Hampshire arguing against his driving on a suspended license charge now time for a little bit of law school David I give you some props for doing okay in there you he definitely comported himself very professionally unlike a lot of sovereign citizens and auditors so I give him props for that however it is obvious that he did not go to law school and I'm going to highlight to you today the the the words that he used that were incorrect and the motions and the things that he did were just wrong so let's dive into a legal analysis of David's defense so he begins his arguments by by stating that he was not properly served with the summons for the case before him and he requests a criminal complaint and an affidavit of probable cause good job David you got the language correct there that's generally when you are when the police and the prosecution are going to go in to bring a criminal case against someone they're gonna have a complaint they're gonna have a an affidavit of probable cause which is a summary of the facts and law that show the criminal offense that you allegedly committed now in a traffic citation like this usually the officer is going to issue a written citation in the state of Pennsylvania you get a written citation and then you have to you have to respond to that written citation you to plead guilty or not guilty usually officers are going to hand that to you at the end of the traffic incident if they don't do that they need to mail it to your address and it's up to you to give the police the correct address if you give them the wrong address and they send the citation or summons to the wrong address and there's no response they'll issue a warrant that's how it goes in Pennsylvania now this was interesting David said that he never received a citation a complaint or a an affidavit of probable cause and then the officer who's there on behalf of the police states that they had just given it to him that morning at the hearing David then said that he was only verbally told to appear to the hearing that is a bit ridiculous and David has a good point there you need it the police need to inform you in writing of the charges and whether you have to plead guilty or not guilty and and then you have to be given time to give a response at least that's how it works in Pennsylvania for them to not serve him with a document at the incident to not serve him with a document at the mail and then to just serve him that day is pretty shoddy police work now it that I feel like something else happened in between there he was just told to arrive at court and he came if he wouldn't have come he could have got a warrant issued and he wasn't given any documentation of that date I don't know what goes on in New Hampshire but I think that mr. David had a point there now courts are pretty liberal with these types of procedural challenges and what he was challenging was service and he's correct they have to serve you with the offenses against you he challenged the service and the judge just kind of brush it off because now he's in the courtroom they see the defendant is there the defendant has been apprised of the charges the the prosecution or the officer is there who has given him the charges and the summary of what actually occurred so that what's going through the judge's mind is we have everybody here and now service has been done properly even if it wasn't done properly in advance now I commend David for bringing that up to the court what he should have done is asked for a postponement he should have said Your Honor I was not properly served this until today so in order for me to prepare for this preliminary arraignment I need more time and that may have been an argument that the judge would have found convincing considering he only got the documents today the judge still may have brushed it off but that may have been a tactic that David could have used again once the judges get everybody in there and all that procedural stuff has sort of been taken care of they're gonna they they're concerned with judicial efficiency they want to move cases judges are highly concerned you have to think about this with moving cases as quickly as possible that's not a good thing for defendants but that's a concern that they have and the judges have a lot of pressure on them to move cases so when they get a chance to move a case they are going to do it he should have asked for a postponement if he wanted needed to make additional arguments so after that and let me just summarize real quick you need to be served either physically or in the mail with the summons otherwise it's not necessarily proper but you got to give the police your correct address during stop I've had people who've given the police the wrong addresses they mailed a summons and then BOOM an issue was just I'm sorry a warrant was just issued and then they got picked up on something I end up going to jail for a couple of hours even a night okay so he he mr. David made had two motions and well they were pretty much the same thing again he was denying service of process he did make an argument about a probable cause finding which i think is something that should be addressed he says to the judge judge what's your probable cause it's not the judges probable cause it's the prosecution's probable cause now the judge does have to determine if there's probable cause in a case but it's not his probable cause do you know it shouldn't question you shouldn't frame the question that way just some advice in the future now when you're making a probable cause arguments what you're doing is making a Fourth Amendment argument and you're saying that there has been an unreasonable search and seizure well actually let me back that up let me break this down into two parts so for every criminal case in Pennsylvania that's a misdemeanor or a felony the prosecution at the preliminary hearing has to show prima facie evidence that a crime occurred that prima facie burden can also be referred to as a probable cause burden that is likely what David was saying here is judge where is due today at this hearing does the Commonwealth have to prove I'm sorry the state of New Hampshire have to prove that there was a little bit of evidence that this crime occurred here's the problem with that argument here is this was a preliminary arraignment which means an arraignment the charges that are brought against you are read to you and bond is set it's not the time for a probable cause or prima fashi challenge to the case that should come at the next stage now this is driving on a suspended license which in Pennsylvania is a minor charge is called a summary charge you do not have the right to that type of challenge okay at a preliminary arraignment and you also don't have the right to a preliminary hearing because the charge is so minor now I don't know what the New Hampshire law is but it's possible that he doesn't have the right to make that type of challenge on a driving while suspended or revoked charge and that may have been why the court brushed it off what I was seeing here was the courts had a preliminary arraignment and then they set a trial date the preliminary hearing would come sometime in between that's where you can challenge the probable cause sometimes the preliminary arraignment and preliminary hearing are on the same day which may have been what was happening here but it didn't appear that way even though the officer stated that this is a preliminary hearing if it actually was a preliminary hearing then the officer has to put some evidence on the record that a crime occurred and I did not see that happen it could be that New Hampshire's processes is arraignment and then trial for cases like this now you can also challenge the probable cause on a case by doing what's called a suppression motion a suppression motion is a Fourth Amendment challenge stating that the police violated the Fourth Amendment in either their stop of the vehicle or at some point after the stop of the vehicle that's a good challenge maybe he has that issue but it you can't address it at the preliminary arraignment you want to file that after the arraignment but before the trial and then you get a separate hearing on it or that issue can be preserved trial and you can do it either right before the trial or perhaps even during that same trial or you can argue that the police again violated the Fourth Amendment meaning they didn't have probable cause to make a stalk of your vehicle the police have to articulate some sort of facts to show why they actually pulled you over there's some case law in Pennsylvania certain types of stop for example an individual was slow just minorly veering over lines while driving and the police pulled them over end up charging the individual with a DUI the court said that veering of lines that's not probable cause to pull someone over if they go into the other Lane it is but being in their same Lane just crossing over those lines likely not probable cause so I think that David was a little mixed up there there's a prima facie / probable cause challenge to the facts that can be made in misdemeanors and felonies and then there's also a suppression motion which challenges the stop or search itself I know I'm throwing a lot at you but these themes repeat through my videos so if you're gonna stick with me you watch some of my prior videos you'll get a larger global understanding of these concepts he also moved the judge to reconsider again this is a preliminary arraignment at an arraignment you're just supposed to get the charges against you and bond set it's not about the probable cause or the facts of the case so he the judge is gonna brush this off he wants to get through this arraignment you can do a motion to reconsider on more pressing issues like a a Fourth Amendment challenge later on but the judge isn't going to address that here one interesting fact here I thought was that he had his bail was set at fifteen hundred dollars which in my opinion is a lot for driving on a suspended license generally in Pennsylvania that type of charge you're not going to have any bail set you're gonna get RoR which is called release on your on your own reconnaissance which basically just means you are released show up to your court dates don't can stone get into any more trouble and you won't your bond will not get revoked we also call that non-monetary bond there can be other forms of non-monetary bond but RoR or a lease on your own reconnaissance and non Mon or non-monetary bonds are very common in these types of cases it's interesting it was $1500 I don't know what the practice is in that court he then asked for the judge to make a written decision again this is summarizing why he made the decision that he made now again this is a preliminary arraignment the judge I'm surprised he even entertained the motions then he denied them if he has some substance of those motions he should file them again or in writing ask for a motion to reconsider but he didn't file them properly in the first place they should have been done after the arraignment so he may want to refile them then get a decision then he can do a motion for reconsideration and perhaps ask for a written answer I can tell from that judge right away he said he would take it under advisement he's not going to provide a written answer David at the end there called it a summary judgment that's not true also and this is non lawyers playing lawyer and mixing up their legal terms summary judgment has a specific meaning in the law it's where you ask the court to make a decision on a case whether or not to dismiss the case before the trial this would not he wasn't asking for summary judgment he was asking for an opinion he wanted the judge to write a legal opinion stating why he made the decision he made I can tell you right now that judge is not going to do that so let's sum let me summarize a little bit of what we learned here today is generally the police if they're when they're going to serve you they need to serve you in person okay by handing you the documents or they need to mail the summons to your house they could also issue a warrant and arrest you and upon arrest it would be properly served serve it's not the greatest challenge in the criminal law but it is true that they have to serve you in some way shape or form you don't want that to be arrest so it's probably a good idea that he showed up to this hearing but he could have asked for a postponement probable cause challenges can come in two forms either at a preliminary hearing or at a suppression motion he David may not have a right to a preliminary hearing because this is a minor traffic charge at that normally the police will be required to put on the record why exactly they picked him up it's not a trial they just need to show a little bit of evidence as to why they charge the crime as they did you also have a suppression motion which is the is a violation of the Fourth Amendment you can beat a case on that that's got to be made in written motion after the arraignment an arraignment is just for you to be told what your charges are and to have your bond set those are the summaries of this case David comported himself well in the courtroom he got a lot of his legal arguments mixed up made them at the wrong place and at the wrong time if he got off if he got his order in line better he may have had a better chance and this folks is why you need an attorney I hope you enjoyed this video I'm trying to mix up my content here if you liked the video please subscribe like comment and share it incentivizes me to make more videos like this also send me videos to my email newsletter at Palmetto law comm I will analyze them and put them up thank you you

Tags:

  1. At the very least, I commend him for staying respectful and behaved responsibly in the court room. Lost my respect when he started spouting the gobbley goop that is the usual delusional rhetoric that is the standard for the sovereign citizens.

  2. I wish would not use the term Sovereign Citizen, there is no such thing plus if he was a Sovereign he not be going through this in my humble opinion.

  3. Guy wasted about a half an hour presenting issues which were not relevant to an arraignment proceeding. Judge dealt with him summarily. This fool tells us that he was somehow "kidnapped". Then he starts this nonsense about "cause of action". Then he wants a "finding of fact and conclusions of law". Apparently he just ignored the citation which pretty much tells him why he was pulled over.

    The lengths these SovCits go, to get out of ordinary traffic violations.

  4. Cornell law https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-402
    § 3-402. SIGNATURE BY REPRESENTATIVE. | Uniform …
    Just explain in the letter, that in order for you to accept it as yours, they need to prove it is, by contract, remember the ALL CAPS SPELLING of your name, is not your name, thats created by agency,state,corporation,etc, bank, did the bank or anyone for that matter lend you actual lawful money(coin or title 12 USC, ss 411 the demand for lawful money?) No, then you are not liable to the debt, as all debt is prepaid for under public law 93-576, 73.10, hjr192, stat 48, 112 under the bankruptcy act of 1933. Look this up, please.

  5. He was in court. How did he know to be in court?
    I’d bet the officer tried to hand him the citation and he refused to accept it. Look on your vessels floor under the travelers seat.

  6. can anyone inform i, of a law that REQUIRES a (WO)MAN to comprehend legalese and the customs of thee legal society (BAR) ????? legalese (n.)
    "the language of legal documents," 1914, from legal + language name ending -ese.   @t

  7. Joe, you have stated that swerving within the lane while driving is not a probable cause for a suspicion of DWI traffic stop by the police. I have been stopped by the police while doing so late at night on a straight flat road. I was asked if I had been drinking alcohol. I said no and the officer let me leave. If I had been asked to take a chemical test or a sobriety test I would have complied. Is there any case law on this issue?

  8. “Statism: The brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the AUTHORITY to kidnap, steal from, and kill us, so that we can be ‘PROTECTED’ from people who kidnap, steal from, and kill us.”

  9. I’ll give him credit for showing up professionally dressed and neatly groomed. He also spoke politely to the judge.

    It has been twenty five years since I took Civ Pro. I still remember the professor drumming into us that the touchstone of due process is notice and the right to be heard. He liked this area of law because it was one of the few areas of Constitutional law he was routinely able to teach. The defendant in this case was right to raise the issue if he was not given notice. However, the fact he was in was in court tends to argue against this. I have seen literally thousands of people released from police custody in California. In all cases where charges were pressed, notice was given. Police are human and make mistakes so I suppose it is possible that he wasn’t given notice but, once again, his presence in court and his obvious preparation tend to suggest otherwise. I have never practiced law in his jurisdiction and can’t comment upon whether that state has a statutorily required method of providing notice. If so, the police might have provided notice in a manner that passes the due process requirements but fails statutory requirements.

    In Los Angeles County, traffic courts are routinely swamped with cases. The hearing officers tend to get frustrated with defendants who the hearing officers believe are making spurious arguments. Hearing officers tend to quickly shut down that kind of thing. In busy traffic courts, it is usually preferable from a pragmatic point of view to only raise one or two very strong arguments. That tends to be the best way to insure those arguments will be fairly addressed. I have personally seen a judge in traffic court convince a defendant that he was winning simply to get the defendant to say he had no further arguments. Once that was on record, the judge found the defendant guilt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *