Sovereign Citizen Gets 30 Days---Charlotte County, Florida

Standard 3 disclaimers: 1. Mods feel free to move if you don't like where I posted this. 2. ...and Yes, I did a search and I did NOT find this story posted anywhere on ATS. I found stories about Sovereign Citizenship but not this actual story. 3. This story does not mean that the end of the world is coming in 2012 (IMO).

NBC2 Florida Story Link 1
A woman who says she is not bound by the laws of the State of Florida earned another month in jail by ignoring the rules of the court Friday.

The woman, who claims to be named "Linda Louise Suae Potestate Esse," was arrested in May after she refused to provide registration information to police for the vehicle she was driving.

She appears to be a part of the "sovereign citizen" movement, a group that believes state and federal laws don't apply to them.

The FBI says members of the group often do not pay their taxes and regularly create false license plates, driver's licenses and even currency.

Friday, Linda Louise continually ignored the judge's orders during her trial on charges for the registration violation and resisting arrest, so the judge gave her another 30 days in jail for contempt.

She is representing herself in the case. Linda Louise was put in contempt after making statements during her questioning of witnesses - which the judge instructed her not to do.

She apologized to the court but was held in contempt.

Her trial will continue July 3rd.

The FBI says the actions of some members of the sovereign citizen movement are certainly quirky, but not crimes.

The FBI says the actions of some members of the sovereign citizen movement are certainly quirky, but not crimes. However, the agency says there is an extremist element of the group, and they consider those people "domestic terrorists."

So what do you all think? Is she a domestic terrorist?

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
... after she refused to provide registration information to police for the vehicle she was driving.

Are "Sovereign Citizens" allowed to drive on public roads by their own belief systems? Who do they think pays for the maintenace of the roads?

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
So what do you all think? Is she a domestic terrorist?

Not a single person, FBI, judge or arresting officer has claimed she is one.
So why do you suggest it?

reply to post by alfa1


I guess that there's one in every bunch...seriously???

Is that what you got from my post. I was just sharing some news and asking for an opinion. I asked for an OPINION.

The fact that the FBI is quoted as saying that some extremist members of the group are domestic terrorists is certainly leading the reading public in a possible scenario consideration.

How about this: Some woman broke the rules and somebody stated that some women are criminals. Does that make sense. Go back to bed!

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
I asked for an OPINION.

My opinion is...
- The group is hypocritical if they use anything paid for by taxpayers.
- Some extremists of any group of people could potentially be "domestic terrorists".
- Nobody has given any reason to suspect she is one.

(and yes, I will go to bed shortly)

reply to post by MightyQuincunx


I think she broke the law... this is all based on some guy who came up with the Accepted for Value scam amongst other things, is sitting in jail right now and people seem to think it's gospel truth.. She deserved the sentence, but no she's not a terrorist..

She is no criminal .

She has injured no one .

She has every right to withhold her consent thus nullifying the force of legislation upon her person .

Everyone has an inherent right to withhold their consent to be governed .

If we didn't have the right to revoke our consent , it would of been a tyranny .

The term, "sovereign citizen" is a contradiction promoted by the media, in order to try and dilute sovereignty as a concept. A citizen and a sovereign are opposites, by definition.

Also, while not being a domestic terrorist, she is not an effective sovereign.



This is how it is done. You can't simply claim that the law does not apply to you. You have to know how to speak their language. You also have to be aware of the fact that virtually any question a judge asks you, is an invitation to contract. If you answer, or obey the judge, that is interpreted as acceptance of contract, and that is when they can jail you.

The FBI and the psychopaths behind institutions like ICE are very worried about sovereigns; the FBI have written themselves to this effect. The reason why, is because governmental authority is only derived from fraud and force. The government wants to be able to rely on fraud; it does not want to be confronted on said fraud. If it is, the only thing it has to fall back on is force, and that has the potential to cause serious problems for it.

reply to post by alfa1


It's called your God given unalienable right to travel. If your creator endowed you with that right, then what man must tell you to have permission before you do so?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
... after she refused to provide registration information to police for the vehicle she was driving.

Are "Sovereign Citizens" allowed to drive on public roads by their own belief systems? Who do they think pays for the maintenace of the roads?

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
So what do you all think? Is she a domestic terrorist?

Not a single person, FBI, judge or arresting officer has claimed she is one.
So why do you suggest it?

Who do you think pays for road maintenance? It's not you, or anyone you know.

None of your federal tax dollars goes towards roads; we don't have state taxes where I live; so the roads are paid on debt.

reply to post by xstealth


I agree....Until the Fed is audited people will really have no idea how their tax dollars are spent. I can assure you, it's not going to the educational system. I would say the 50% of congress that are millionaires would be a good place to start looking.

Nope, she's just a bs artist, as is anybody who claims that laws don't apply to them.

Your question: is she a domestic terrorist?

In my opinion NO.

Oh and as another poster said, she does have a right to travel with the exception of two things.

1) its where ever your feet can take you, except for the number 2.

2) private property.

However once she started operating a vehicle on the road, she must abide by the law.

Her thinking the vehicle doesnt need to be registered to operate on the road is crazy.

If she thinks that, where would her mind stand in a vehicular accident and someone dies because of her actions.


What, not her fault? Lol " you cant charge me im sovereign and not responsible for anything"

Hahahaha she is crazy.

But not a domestic terrorist......yet!

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Not the laws, just the stupid ones. Anything that doesn't fall under common law. Which basically says as long as they can not produce criminal intent and injured party/property, then you are free to do as you like...It was that way for YEARS before this corrupted system we call a government led by the banks decided they'd rather rule us than us rule ourselves. Most people don't even know that the States United, and not the United States of America corporation of DC, were a constitutional republic in the beginning, and every citizen was a sovereign. Until the Civil war, and we get civil rights because we are considered slave citizens via the 14th amendment, and not sovereigns...Enjoy that birth certificate now? That is what makes you have to follow the Admirality jurisdiction of the USA corporation and not the common law of the States United.

I am not taking a position on the validity of any of the theroies and arguments here. It may be that there has to be a fringe on the flag patch on a police officer's arm to make an arrest valid. Or you have to be in an Admiralty vessel to be required to pay any taxes. All that's another question. For now look at the real life results in real life courts. (And no, that video posted in the thread does not show a sovereign citizen victory.)

If you say, in court, as a defense,

Enjoy that birth certificate now? That is what makes you have to follow the Admirality jurisdiction of the USA corporation and not the common law of the States United.

You will go to jail, a psychiatric observation unit, or be sent on your way with the comment "It's been a heck of a day, let's send this loony on his way so we don't have to play with the paperwork."

reply to post by charles1952


Its the truth though... Birth Certificate didn't even exist until like 1930. The people who have one are the ones under the admirality jurisdiction, however a state citizen is a sovereign who is under common law and the constitution. As long as you don't break an article of the constitution, you are allowed to do as you please. Admirality comes in with the 1000s of additional statues codes etc.


/E: If they sent me to jail for knowing the law, I would counter-sue for treason.

Originally posted by charles1952
I am not taking a position on the validity of any of the theroies and arguments here. It may be that there has to be a fringe on the flag patch on a police officer's arm to make an arrest valid. Or you have to be in an Admiralty vessel to be required to pay any taxes. All that's another question. For now look at the real life results in real life courts. (And no, that video posted in the thread does not show a sovereign citizen victory.)

If you say, in court, as a defense,

Enjoy that birth certificate now? That is what makes you have to follow the Admirality jurisdiction of the USA corporation and not the common law of the States United.

You will go to jail, a psychiatric observation unit, or be sent on your way with the comment "It's been a heck of a day, let's send this loony on his way so we don't have to play with the paperwork."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The people who quote the above and go to jail are amateurs. Watch the video I linked in my above post. The guy there did the only thing that matters.

He refused to accept the offer of contract.

If the judge asks you if your name is X, and you confirm that it is, that is an offer and acceptance of contract; and that is the point, after which, the judge can literally do anything with you that he wants. That is the entire reason why they ask you for your name in the first place. It's not to confirm identity; that is BS.

You are being asked for your legal authorisation to sentence you.

A judge can't do it without said consent; but because he knows that no sane person would give him said consent, if he asked for it in those terms, they need to be dishonest about it. After that point, it doesn't matter what else you say. You can rant about Admiralty until you're blue in the face, or claim that they don't have authority over you, when the fact is that they do have said authority, because you gave it to them.

So they hide it in asking you to confirm your identity. Then again, maybe they're actually not hiding it at all.

reply to post by petrus4

Dear petrus4,

There is quite a lot about you that I admire, but it seems to me (and I could easily be wrong) that you have a bit of a blind spot on this subject.

I watched the video and noted that this is a court in Manitoba, Canada. I am unfamiliar with their laws. Second, the only thing the magistrate (or judge, or whatever they're called) did, was declare a recess. There was no victory for the "sovereign citizen," in fact, he has to sit around twiddling his thumbs, wasting his time, while the magistrate goes out for a good laugh, or whatever else he wants to do.

Please don't advise people to follow his example.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by petrus4


Where does this "if you say your name you're under a contract" stuff spawn from? I mean it's not an agreement in any form and there is no contract even presented.

reply to post by petrus4


This "Judge bows to sovereign" is crap. This is filmed in a [u]Canadian courtroom, and the magistrate there always bows - to the emblem of the British Commonwealth - when he leaves the court; a tad like RC church.

'Since the Jerry Kane business, the so-called "sovereigns" are no longer treated like quaint eccentrics and now get the full jolt. This woman hasn't registered her car, apparently didn't have a driver's license or a license plate, and refused to identify herself to the court or to comply with court rules.

Result: She'll probably spend more time in lockup than if she had behaved herself.