I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
My question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this
matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
My question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this
matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
My question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this
matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage >> of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content
creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams
suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that'sMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this
matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision,
I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >>> wrote:I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh
language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once
they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that'sMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of thisSovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made >>>> by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled? >>>
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision,
I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few
unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the
courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them.
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution, itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content
creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams
suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh
language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once
they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see just by tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves with all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube.
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:Have the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't the 1950s
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no
shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content >>>> creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams >>>> suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see just by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves with >> all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube. >>
any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in dialogue.
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh
language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once
they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that'sMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made >>>>> by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruledSovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled? >>>>
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision,
I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few
unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the
courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them.
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution, >> itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life
with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers.
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments
in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside lawyering".
On Jun 30, 2026 at 8:45:11 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>Have the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't the 1950s
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no >>>>> shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content >>>>> creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams >>>>> suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see just by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves with
all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube. >>>
any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in dialogue.
Oh, they don't mind cursing or any kind of degenerate moral content, like graphic descriptions of gay sex or transformer sex practices. That's all a-okay.
But if you have a channel about gun enthusiasts talking about different makes and models or demonstrating them on a firing range, or even just talking about
legal issues around guns, they'll harass you endlessly about it.
The goal of their censorship isn't to make the platform child-friendly. It's to make it leftist-friendly.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that'sMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made >>>>>> by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled >>>>>> against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled? >>>>>SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision,
I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few
unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the >>>> courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them.
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution, >>> itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling
that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake
get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life
with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers.
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments
in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside
lawyering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement?wprov=sfti1#
IrCOd love to know if thererCOs a website where you send away for a kit or something. They all have a folder of forms and for instance, one of them is
a bill of charges they want the police to pay them for the inconvenience of being stopped for breaking the law and they wonrCOt roll down the window until the cop accepts it.
On 2026-07-01 2:37 a.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:I think there MUST be such a website (or maybe a bunch of them) because several of the "sovereign citizens" stopped in the videos have the
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>>>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>>>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that's >>>>> what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision, >>>>> I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a fewMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made >>>>>>> by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled >>>>>>> against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled? >>>>>>SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the >>>>> courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them. >>>>>
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution, >>>> itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling >>> that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake >>> get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life
with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers.
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments
in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside
lawyering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement?wprov=sfti1#
IrCOd love to know if thererCOs a website where you send away for a kit or >> something. They all have a folder of forms and for instance, one of them is >> a bill of charges they want the police to pay them for the inconvenience of >> being stopped for breaking the law and they wonrCOt roll down the window
until the cop accepts it.
papers with them and some of them read from those papers verbatim.
Maybe, just maybe, these sites display full documents that you can just print off with your own printer and don't even charge for it but I
suspect that one or more con artists have decided that this could be a
cash cow and charge people for nicely printed documents.
Just to see for myself, I just did a search for "sovereign citizen
license plate" and got this result: https://search.brave.com/search?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&summary=1&conversation=09458471b972d1f82c7ffad1e45ed660c242
Then I clicked on the first hit and got: https://search.brave.com/images?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&context=W3sic3JjIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9pbWdzLnNlYXJjaC5icmF2ZS5jb20vZ2RYcHRValJtNGVodkFWd3VBRjd2S0tWcUJLMFRoQkE4dTlHZW51Z1E5NC9yczpmaXQ6NTAwOjA6MDowL2c6Y2UvYUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbC9aR2xoTFdGdFlYcHZiaTVqL2IyMHZhVzFoWjJWekwwa3YvTmpGdlMwZzJNSGhITWt3dS9hbkJuIiwidGV4dCI6IlNvdmVyZWlnbiBDaXRpemVuIFBob3RvIExpY2Vuc2UgUGxhdGUiLCJwYWdlX3VybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFtYXpvbi5jYS9Tb3ZlcmVpZ24tQ2l0aXplbi1QaG90by1MaWNlbnNlLVBsYXRlL2RwL0IwOEpNQ0hOMzIifV0%3D&sig=35b8b4485ecc5ff3a400973ec4ad66930201abc8a6664070be53730198f12cb6&nonce=8aba9d0863558399a057c58bbc2cf462
Many, many pictures of fake license plates, along with information that
you can buy these at sites like Amazon.
I also found this passage in a document that confirms my suspicion about being able to find and buy sovereign citizen documents online:
========================================================================== Individuals may access sovereign citizen theory and documents easily
through the internet. And not surprisingly there are any number of
vendors of driverrCOs licenses, license tags, pleadings and other papers
who are glad to sell their wares to anyone who sees in them a means to
be free from traffic tickets, debts, taxes and other government
obligations.
Source: https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf
(Page 4) ==========================================================================
And here is an item on Amazon that apparently includes documents you can
CUT OUT to show the police that you are a "sovereign citizen".
My suspicions are confirmed! There are apparently a substantial number
of organizations that have some version of the "sovereign citizen" idea
and they DO make the documentation that supports the idea available to
those that believe they are speaking the truth (or are willing to
pretend that they believe it to evade fees like those for drivers
licenses).
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-01 2:37 a.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:I think there MUST be such a website (or maybe a bunch of them) because
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that's >>>>>> what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision, >>>>>> I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few >>>>>> unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the >>>>>> courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would >>>>>> appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them. >>>>>>My question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled >>>>>>>> against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution,
itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling >>>> that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake >>>> get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life >>>> with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers.
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments >>>> in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside
lawyering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement?wprov=sfti1#
IrCOd love to know if thererCOs a website where you send away for a kit or >>> something. They all have a folder of forms and for instance, one of them is >>> a bill of charges they want the police to pay them for the inconvenience of >>> being stopped for breaking the law and they wonrCOt roll down the window >>> until the cop accepts it.
several of the "sovereign citizens" stopped in the videos have the
papers with them and some of them read from those papers verbatim.
Maybe, just maybe, these sites display full documents that you can just
print off with your own printer and don't even charge for it but I
suspect that one or more con artists have decided that this could be a
cash cow and charge people for nicely printed documents.
Just to see for myself, I just did a search for "sovereign citizen
license plate" and got this result:
https://search.brave.com/search?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&summary=1&conversation=09458471b972d1f82c7ffad1e45ed660c242
Then I clicked on the first hit and got:
https://search.brave.com/images?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&context=W3sic3JjIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9pbWdzLnNlYXJjaC5icmF2ZS5jb20vZ2RYcHRValJtNGVodkFWd3VBRjd2S0tWcUJLMFRoQkE4dTlHZW51Z1E5NC9yczpmaXQ6NTAwOjA6MDowL2c6Y2UvYUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbC9aR2xoTFdGdFlYcHZiaTVqL2IyMHZhVzFoWjJWekwwa3YvTmpGdlMwZzJNSGhITWt3dS9hbkJuIiwidGV4dCI6IlNvdmVyZWlnbiBDaXRpemVuIFBob3RvIExpY2Vuc2UgUGxhdGUiLCJwYWdlX3VybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFtYXpvbi5jYS9Tb3ZlcmVpZ24tQ2l0aXplbi1QaG90by1MaWNlbnNlLVBsYXRlL2RwL0IwOEpNQ0hOMzIifV0%3D&sig=35b8b4485ecc5ff3a400973ec4ad66930201abc8a6664070be53730198f12cb6&nonce=8aba9d0863558399a057c58bbc2cf462
Many, many pictures of fake license plates, along with information that
you can buy these at sites like Amazon.
I also found this passage in a document that confirms my suspicion about
being able to find and buy sovereign citizen documents online:
========================================================================== >> Individuals may access sovereign citizen theory and documents easily
through the internet. And not surprisingly there are any number of
vendors of driverrCOs licenses, license tags, pleadings and other papers
who are glad to sell their wares to anyone who sees in them a means to
be free from traffic tickets, debts, taxes and other government
obligations.
Source:
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf
(Page 4)
========================================================================== >>
And here is an item on Amazon that apparently includes documents you can
CUT OUT to show the police that you are a "sovereign citizen".
My suspicions are confirmed! There are apparently a substantial number
of organizations that have some version of the "sovereign citizen" idea
and they DO make the documentation that supports the idea available to
those that believe they are speaking the truth (or are willing to
pretend that they believe it to evade fees like those for drivers
licenses).
As I feared. And these people just believe everything they find on the web.
On 2026-07-01 12:06 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 8:45:11 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:There seem to be quite a few channels that are very positive towards
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino"Have the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't the 1950s >>> any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in dialogue.
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no >>>>>> shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content
creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams
suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or >>>>> silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh
language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once
they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see >>>> just by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves >>>> with
all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube.
Oh, they don't mind cursing or any kind of degenerate moral content, like >> graphic descriptions of gay sex or transformer sex practices. That's all
a-okay.
But if you have a channel about gun enthusiasts talking about different
makes
and models or demonstrating them on a firing range, or even just talking
about
legal issues around guns, they'll harass you endlessly about it.
guns and even feature good ol' boys shooting things that follow every
round with ultra-highspeed cameras to see the flight paths and damage inflicted by the weapons. I've seen a number of those and none of the presenters ever claimed to have been harassed or to have self-censored
due to YouTube's restrictions.
The goal of their censorship isn't to make the platform child-friendly. It'sLeftists have never shown themselves to be timid when it comes to
to make it leftist-friendly.
cursing so I fail to understand why they are so prissy about cursing in videos.
As for violence, their hypocrisy in advocating and committing
violence against their enemies while claiming to be all about peace,
love, and tolerance is legendary yet they refuse to admit it and ban
words like "killed" or "murdered" forcing people to use workarounds like "unalived". It's all a bit surreal.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement?wprov=sfti1#
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech,
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to >>>>>> be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in >>>>>> which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no
shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content >>>>> creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams >>>>> suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the
point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that's >>>> what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision, >>>> I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a fewMy question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made >>>>>> by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled >>>>>> against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled? >>>>>SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the >>>> courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would
appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them. >>>>
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution, >>> itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling >> that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake >> get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life
with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers.
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments
in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside
lawyering".
IrCOd love to know if thererCOs a website where you send away for a kit or something. They all have a folder of forms and for instance, one of them is
a bill of charges they want the police to pay them for the inconvenience of being stopped for breaking the law and they wonrCOt roll down the window until the cop accepts it.
On Jul 1, 2026 at 6:09:15 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-01 12:06 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 8:45:11 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>There seem to be quite a few channels that are very positive towards
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:Oh, they don't mind cursing or any kind of degenerate moral content, like >>> graphic descriptions of gay sex or transformer sex practices. That's all >>> a-okay.
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino"Have the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't the 1950s >>>> any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in dialogue. >>>
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers
licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time. >>>>>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no
shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these
nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content
creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams
suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video
has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or >>>>>> silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to
explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh
language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once
they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being >>>>>> attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't
find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't
see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see >>>>> just by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves
with
all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube.
But if you have a channel about gun enthusiasts talking about different >>> makes
and models or demonstrating them on a firing range, or even just talking >>> about
legal issues around guns, they'll harass you endlessly about it.
guns and even feature good ol' boys shooting things that follow every
round with ultra-highspeed cameras to see the flight paths and damage
inflicted by the weapons. I've seen a number of those and none of the
presenters ever claimed to have been harassed or to have self-censored
due to YouTube's restrictions.
YouTube censorship is like Fight Club: The first rule of YouTube censorship is
that you don't talk about YouTube censorship.
Seriously. You can get a strike in your channel if you talk too much or in too
much detail about the censorship regime on YouTube.
One immutable characteristic of censors throughout history is they *really* don't like people publicizing their censorship. On the NextDoor platform, you're not allowed to publicly mention any of the 'disciplinary' actions taken
against you. If they delete a comment, you can't go back in that thread and tell everyone that your comment was deleted or publicly complain about the censorship rules. That will just escalate your punishments.
to make it leftist-friendly.Leftists have never shown themselves to be timid when it comes to
cursing so I fail to understand why they are so prissy about cursing in
videos.
As I said, they don't care about that. I just watched ShoeOnHead's latest video about the Karmelo Anthony case and she was dropping f-bombs right and left. But if she started talking negatively about the 'joys' of mass migration
and enforced cultural enrichment, she'd be flirting with demonetization almost
immediately.
As for violence, their hypocrisy in advocating and committing
violence against their enemies while claiming to be all about peace,
love, and tolerance is legendary yet they refuse to admit it and ban
words like "killed" or "murdered" forcing people to use workarounds like
"unalived". It's all a bit surreal.
They won't allow you to say 'rape' or 'sexual assault', either. People have been using 'grape' and 'SA' to get around the AI censorship bot, but I think they programmed it to hit those words, too, because a few weeks ago I watched a video exposing Ilhan Omar's fake California winery and it was bizarrely muting them whenever they referenced grapes in regard to winemaking.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 09:07:15 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-01 2:37 a.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:I think there MUST be such a website (or maybe a bunch of them) because
On 2026-06-30 10:50 p.m., anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:The video I linked showed the "sovereign citizen" pulling a gun and
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us.
I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs
by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no shortage of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>>>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or >>>>>>> silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>>>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>>>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>>>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>>>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>>>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>>>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
Interesting. I had assumed they'd won some court decisions and that's >>>>>>> what kept them using these arguments. If they've lost every decision, >>>>>>> I'm inclined to think that this movement is just a con where a few >>>>>>> unscrupulous types sell them these documents and promise them that the >>>>>>> courts will find in their favour if push comes to shove. This would >>>>>>> appeal to some people who don't think of the rules as being for them. >>>>>>>My question for Adam, BTR1701, or anyone else with knowledge of this >>>>>>>>> matter is just how solidly have the courts dismissed the arguments made
by the "sovereign citizens"? In other words, have the courts ruled >>>>>>>>> against all their arguments? Or are some of the issues not yet settled?
SovCits have never won in court. Not once. Ever.
It staggers the imagination why they keep at it.
My Facebook feed gets flurries of these videos. If they have a resolution,
itrCOs always just dismissed or a tiny fine.
getting several hot lead injections for his trouble. He won't be pulling >>>>> that crap again. Meanwhile, the snake oil salesman who sold him the fake >>>>> get-out-of-jail-free paperwork is probably enjoying a comfortable life >>>>> with all the money he's fleeced off the fools who bought his papers. >>>>>
Obviously, these "sovereign citizens" should be trying their arguments >>>>> in court, not wasting the time of several officers with "roadside
lawyering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement?wprov=sfti1#
IrCOd love to know if thererCOs a website where you send away for a kit or >>>> something. They all have a folder of forms and for instance, one of them is
a bill of charges they want the police to pay them for the inconvenience of
being stopped for breaking the law and they wonrCOt roll down the window >>>> until the cop accepts it.
several of the "sovereign citizens" stopped in the videos have the
papers with them and some of them read from those papers verbatim.
Maybe, just maybe, these sites display full documents that you can just
print off with your own printer and don't even charge for it but I
suspect that one or more con artists have decided that this could be a
cash cow and charge people for nicely printed documents.
Just to see for myself, I just did a search for "sovereign citizen
license plate" and got this result:
https://search.brave.com/search?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&summary=1&conversation=09458471b972d1f82c7ffad1e45ed660c242
Then I clicked on the first hit and got:
https://search.brave.com/images?q=sovereign+citizen+licence+plate&context=W3sic3JjIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9pbWdzLnNlYXJjaC5icmF2ZS5jb20vZ2RYcHRValJtNGVodkFWd3VBRjd2S0tWcUJLMFRoQkE4dTlHZW51Z1E5NC9yczpmaXQ6NTAwOjA6MDowL2c6Y2UvYUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbC9aR2xoTFdGdFlYcHZiaTVqL2IyMHZhVzFoWjJWekwwa3YvTmpGdlMwZzJNSGhITWt3dS9hbkJuIiwidGV4dCI6IlNvdmVyZWlnbiBDaXRpemVuIFBob3RvIExpY2Vuc2UgUGxhdGUiLCJwYWdlX3VybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFtYXpvbi5jYS9Tb3ZlcmVpZ24tQ2l0aXplbi1QaG90by1MaWNlbnNlLVBsYXRlL2RwL0IwOEpNQ0hOMzIifV0%3D&sig=35b8b4485ecc5ff3a400973ec4ad66930201abc8a6664070be53730198f12cb6&nonce=8aba9d0863558399a057c58bbc2cf462
Many, many pictures of fake license plates, along with information that
you can buy these at sites like Amazon.
I also found this passage in a document that confirms my suspicion about >>> being able to find and buy sovereign citizen documents online:
========================================================================== >>> Individuals may access sovereign citizen theory and documents easily
through the internet. And not surprisingly there are any number of
vendors of driverrCOs licenses, license tags, pleadings and other papers >>> who are glad to sell their wares to anyone who sees in them a means to
be free from traffic tickets, debts, taxes and other government
obligations.
Source:
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf
(Page 4)
========================================================================== >>>
And here is an item on Amazon that apparently includes documents you can >>> CUT OUT to show the police that you are a "sovereign citizen".
My suspicions are confirmed! There are apparently a substantial number
of organizations that have some version of the "sovereign citizen" idea
and they DO make the documentation that supports the idea available to
those that believe they are speaking the truth (or are willing to
pretend that they believe it to evade fees like those for drivers
licenses).
As I feared. And these people just believe everything they find on the web.
I love when they get stopped by the police and refuse every request
because they are a sovereign citizen. What makes me laugh is that this
is the same thing they've been doing for many years and the outcome is
always the same. Which makes you wonder why they think they can pull
the same stunt as someone else did years ago that failed and yet it
will work now.
On Jul 1, 2026 at 6:09:15 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-01 12:06 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 8:45:11 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >>> wrote:There seem to be quite a few channels that are very positive towards
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino"Have the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't the 1950s >>>> any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in dialogue.
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"I am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They censor speech, >>>>>> including any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the video that it >>>>>> is nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is complete, the video >>>>>> has only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred, censored or
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't need drivers >>>>>>>> licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of the rest of us. >>>>>>>> I'd never known that these people were treated as potential powderkegs >>>>>>>> by police officers until I watched a few videos, including this one, in
which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12 minutes]
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there have been no >>>>>>> shortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the road by these >>>>>>> nutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is that content >>>>>>> creators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of these bodycams >>>>>>> suddenly
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
silent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a voiceover to >>>>>> explain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea what the >>>>>> point of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced warning of harsh >>>>>> language, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd >>>>>> assume the audience could decide for itself what its tolerance was once >>>>>> they'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children being
attracted to such material and not being deterred by warnings. I don't >>>>>> find that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things they shouldn't >>>>>> see as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad than
infantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone can see >>>>> just by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the broadcast airwaves >>>>> with
all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem for YouTube. >>>>>
Oh, they don't mind cursing or any kind of degenerate moral content, like >>> graphic descriptions of gay sex or transformer sex practices. That's all >>> a-okay.
But if you have a channel about gun enthusiasts talking about different
makes
and models or demonstrating them on a firing range, or even just talking >>> about
legal issues around guns, they'll harass you endlessly about it.
guns and even feature good ol' boys shooting things that follow every
round with ultra-highspeed cameras to see the flight paths and damage
inflicted by the weapons. I've seen a number of those and none of the
presenters ever claimed to have been harassed or to have self-censored
due to YouTube's restrictions.
YouTube censorship is like Fight Club: The first rule of YouTube censorship is
that you don't talk about YouTube censorship.
Seriously. You can get a strike in your channel if you talk too much or in too
much detail about the censorship regime on YouTube.
One immutable characteristic of censors throughout history is they *really* don't like people publicizing their censorship. On the NextDoor platform, you're not allowed to publicly mention any of the 'disciplinary' actions taken
against you. If they delete a comment, you can't go back in that thread and tell everyone that your comment was deleted or publicly complain about the censorship rules. That will just escalate your punishments.
The goal of their censorship isn't to make the platform child-friendly. It'sLeftists have never shown themselves to be timid when it comes to
to make it leftist-friendly.
cursing so I fail to understand why they are so prissy about cursing in
videos.
As I said, they don't care about that. I just watched ShoeOnHead's latest video about the Karmelo Anthony case and she was dropping f-bombs right and left. But if she started talking negatively about the 'joys' of mass migration
and enforced cultural enrichment, she'd be flirting with demonetization almost
immediately.
As for violence, their hypocrisy in advocating and committing
violence against their enemies while claiming to be all about peace,
love, and tolerance is legendary yet they refuse to admit it and ban
words like "killed" or "murdered" forcing people to use workarounds like
"unalived". It's all a bit surreal.
They won't allow you to say 'rape' or 'sexual assault', either. People have been using 'grape' and 'SA' to get around the AI censorship bot, but I think they programmed it to hit those words, too, because a few weeks ago I watched a video exposing Ilhan Omar's fake California winery and it was bizarrely muting them whenever they referenced grapes in regard to winemaking.
On 2026-07-01 1:01 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:<no_offline_contact@example.com>
On Jul 1, 2026 at 6:09:15 AM PDT, "Rhino"
need driverswrote:
On 2026-07-01 12:06 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 8:45:11 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 10:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 6:46:58 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-30 8:35 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 4:43:08 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
I've heard of this "sovereign citizen" idea before and understand it to
be a claim that self-styled sovereign citizens don't
the rest of us.licences, insurance, and all of that stuff required of
potential powderkegsI'd never known that these people were treated as
including this one, inby police officers until I watched a few videos,
time.which someone FA's and then FO's for the very last
minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRNKoMmTBJ0 [12
have been no
This time it was the SovCit that found out, but there
road by theseshortage
of
incidents where the cop ends up shot on the side of the
that contentnutbags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEfWqEGZgM
(Apparently YouTube's latest absurd censorship demand is
these bodycamscreators
cannot have audible gunfire in their videos so all of
censor speech,suddenlyI am truly annoyed by YouTube's ludicrous rules. They
go silent the moment a firearm is discharged.)
video that itincluding any subtitles, they make you blur so much of the
complete, the videois nearly ALL blurs and by the time the editing is
censored orhas only the briefest interludes that aren't blurred,
voiceover tosilent. If the content creator can't be bothered to do a
what theexplain what's going on, you can find that you have no idea
warning of harshpoint of the video even was.
If I was running things, I would give viewers advanced
tolerance was oncelanguage, violence or whatever, and then show the video uncensored. I'd
assume the audience could decide for itself what its
beingthey'd received the warning.
Of course someone is bound to raise the issue of children
warnings. I don'tattracted to such material and not being deterred by
they shouldn'tfind that very compelling. Kids have been seeing things
thansee as long as there have been kids; that seems less bad
can seeinfantilizing EVERYONE.
It's crazy that you can't watch stuff on YouTube that anyone
broadcast airwavesjust by
tuning in to the nightly news. If it's okay for the
for YouTube.with
all the FCC rules that apply, then it shouldn't be a problem
the 1950sHave the YouTube owners looked at a calendar lately? It isn't
dialogue.any more when you couldn't show violence or have cursing in
content, like
Oh, they don't mind cursing or any kind of degenerate moral
That's allgraphic descriptions of gay sex or transformer sex practices.
differenta-okay.
But if you have a channel about gun enthusiasts talking about
towardsmakesThere seem to be quite a few channels that are very positive
and models or demonstrating them on a firing range, or even just talking
about
legal issues around guns, they'll harass you endlessly about it.
everyguns and even feature good ol' boys shooting things that follow
damageround with ultra-highspeed cameras to see the flight paths and
theinflicted by the weapons. I've seen a number of those and none of
censoredpresenters ever claimed to have been harassed or to have self-
censorship isdue to YouTube's restrictions.
YouTube censorship is like Fight Club: The first rule of YouTube
or in toothat you don't talk about YouTube censorship.
Seriously. You can get a strike in your channel if you talk too much
*really*much detail about the censorship regime on YouTube.
One immutable characteristic of censors throughout history is they
platform,don't like people publicizing their censorship. On the NextDoor
actions takenyou're not allowed to publicly mention any of the 'disciplinary'
thread andagainst you. If they delete a comment, you can't go back in that
about thetell everyone that your comment was deleted or publicly complain
don'tcensorship rules. That will just escalate your punishments.You're certainly right about the fact that regimes - all regimes -
like their censorship mentioned. They like to pretend that they don'tcursing in
censor and it embarrasses them to hear that contradicted.
>>> The goal of their censorship isn't to make the platform child-friendly. It's
to make it leftist-friendly.Leftists have never shown themselves to be timid when it comes to
cursing so I fail to understand why they are so prissy about
latestvideos.
As I said, they don't care about that. I just watched ShoeOnHead's
right andvideo about the Karmelo Anthony case and she was dropping f-bombs
demonetization almostleft. But if she started talking negatively about the 'joys' of mass migration
and enforced cultural enrichment, she'd be flirting with
peace,immediately.
As for violence, their hypocrisy in advocating and committing
violence against their enemies while claiming to be all about
banlove, and tolerance is legendary yet they refuse to admit it and
likewords like "killed" or "murdered" forcing people to use workarounds
People have"unalived". It's all a bit surreal.
They won't allow you to say 'rape' or 'sexual assault', either.
I thinkbeen using 'grape' and 'SA' to get around the AI censorship bot, but
I watchedthey programmed it to hit those words, too, because a few weeks ago
bizarrelya video exposing Ilhan Omar's fake California winery and it was
amuting them whenever they referenced grapes in regard to winemaking.I've long noticed their obsession with phrasing and framing things in
particular way and their efforts to suppress some words entirely asif
the word is the problem rather than the action described by the word:why
they think the word "murdered" is "problematic" when it is the ACT of
murder that is the issue so they insist it not be used without even bothering to say WHY the word is a problem. I truly don't understand
"murdered" is an issue. Murder is not a new thing and has been goingon
since time immemorial so why is it suddenly unacceptable to use thethe
word? It's as they believe forbidding the word is going to preclude
act. This makes no sense to me.to
They also frequently re-define which words are acceptable for a given
thing. The most obvious is the evolution from "nigger" to "coloured"
"black" to "African-American" to "person of colour" to "BIPOC" todescribed
whatever this week's acceptable term is. Remarkably, this evolution
doesn't even seem to involve a signoff from the people being
so much as some "activist" taking offense on behalf of the peoplebeing
described and arrogantly demanding that a different word be used,right
up until some OTHER "activist" declares the new word problematic and mandates another.the
These flights of fancy often hide sinister things. I'm thinking of
term "gender-affirming care". The use of "care" in that phraseimplies
only moral support for the notion that the individual is a differentsex
that their genitalia suggests and moral support for a troubledpenises,
individual seems only kind and decent. But the term hides use of
powerful drugs that will permanently alter the chemistry of a body,
often irreversibly, and ultimately chopping off of breasts or
which are also irreversible, for people that are too young andimmature
to give informed consent and contrary to the wishes of their parentsand
caregivers in many cases. And THAT seems truly evil to me.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:28:02 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,242 |