“A man: Michael-charles:, sui juris, jus soli, acting as petitioner” filed a series of complaints with the court regarding traffic citations. In his view, he was traveling in his “private capacity” and was issued multiple traffic citations for driving while [having his license] revoked and failure to register a motor vehicle. He claims, among other things, the following:
“This petitioner does not operate in commerce nor does he possess any contract with the missouri [sic] department of revenue wherein he would be required to be in possession of a driver’s license number or have been issued the driver’s license number [omitted]. As such these citations are false in the very essence of the word. That Bratton did falsely identify the petitioner and has caused the petitioner harm. By falsely identifying petitioner as a person and not the sovereign american [sic] that he is, Bratton attempted to force the petitioner into Bratton’s jurisdiction depriving the sovereign of his unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
A month after the citations, he filed a “UCC 1- 308 without dishonor” attempting to void his obligations regarding the citations. He also makes claims against the clerk of the court, the police officer who cited him, and complained that the judge was practicing law from the bench.
He claims “the defendants in this cause are conspiring against this petitioner to deny him of his rights to stand as a man and not under any title, to carry on his business in private as he may see fit.”
He also attempted to sue all involved but it was ruled that they are immune from the suit. They were just doing their jobs.
In other words, stupid laws are getting in the way of him doing what he wants to do.
It never ceases to amaze me the boldness with which sovereign citizens behave. They truly believe they are above the law.
As you might expect, this case was dismissed.
The court says, as do many courts in cases just like these, “such allegations of sovereignty and exemption from jurisdiction have been rejected as frivolous in this Circuit and other federal courts around the nation, and they are rejected in this case as well.”