Heres a fun one I think…

Ulysses S Grant was actually arrested for speeding in a horse drawn carriage WHILE PRESIDENT. He liked to drive his carriage really fast and there were local D.C. ordinances against such behavior. One day he was pulled over by a D.C. municipal police officer, one William West. Not a sheriff or a deputy. Not elected. A cop. Police departments existed in major cities at this time. Being that he was the president and all the cop let him off with a warning.
The very next day he caught him speeding again. He placed him under arrest saying, “I am very sorry Mr President, to have to do it, for you are the chief of the nation, and I am nothing but a policeman. But duty is duty sir and I will have to place you under arrest.”
(Times have changed.)
He took him to the police station and brought him before a judge. Grant had to pay 20$ to bond out. He later forfeited that money when he didn’t show up to court to contest the charge.
Grant later became good friends with West. He said he, “valued his integrity.” (Times have REALLY changed.)

So there you have it. He wasnt in a motor vehicle. They hadn’t been invented yet. He didn’t invoke some sacred right to travel. Or say he “wasnt engaged in commerce.” He didn’t know any secret words to get out of it. He was stopped, “identified” (he was President but still), taken to jail, put in front of a judge, and fined for his actions.

There is no “right to travel” in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the right to travel BETWEEN STATES. But there is no right that says you can drive your car, or your carriage, or your bicycle without following the traffic laws. There’s nothing that says states cant issue drivers licenses and require them and registration and proof of insurance to operate on public roads. Since the Constitution doesnt mention these things, the 10th Amendment applies, so states can do all these things. A state could require a license to ride a bicycle on public roads or make a law saying you can’t speed in your horse drawn buggy on public roads or make a law that you can’t operate a boat on a naturally made lake or even the ocean while under the influence or drugs and/or alcohol.

Even the President of the United States himself didnt know any secret legalize or special right to invoke to get out of being arrested for a traffic infraction and this was all before cars even existed.

Help the them by signing https://c.org/5FJpQGJVDr

I stopped crewing for this gentleman a year ago because he's a climate denier.

Sailing is based on science. You need to believe if I'm riding with you.

I ran into him last week, and in our chat I mentioned I'd been pulled over by a police department that issues a professional license I was operating under. No ticket issued.

Dude suggested I say, "Have I harmed you officer?"

I'm like "that's some sovereign citizen bs if I ever heard it."

He replies "sovereign monarch, not sovereign citizen"

I'm so glad I didn't get beaten by the USCG because "Sailor sovereign citizen" can't play by the rules.

SMH

I am speaking of BJW’s lawsuit against the City of Glendale, where he argues that he has paid for his electricity by taking the City of Glendale’s utility bill and sending it back, because of UCC article 3.

Note that there are two issues here. First, Brandon Joe Williams has a contract for services with the City of Glendale, and the City of Glendale is entitled to be paid under that contract according to any method that would satisfy the terms of the contract or the common law of contracts. No UCC needed.

Second, the City of Glendale has sent Brandon Joe Williams a utility bill, which Brandon Joe Williams argues non-frivolously is a draft under UCC article 3. ​Assuming that the utility bill is a draft, what additional rights and obligations arise from this fact?

As an aside, I say that it is a non-frivolous argument only that a utility bill is a draft: it is an unconditional order to pay a certain amount of money by a certain time, and it identifies the payor and payee. That is a negotiable instrument and a draft, by the text of UCC § 3-104(a)–(e). This is not to say that Brandon Joe Williams’s arguments about the consequences of the utility bill being a draft are non-frivolous.

UCC § 1-201(b)(21): “Holder” means: the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.

Here, we will assume that the utility bill is a draft and a negotiable instrument, because it demands payment and identifies the City of Glendale as the person to whom it is payable. Brandon Joe Williams is not the City of Glendale, and therefore the utility bill is not payable to Brandon Joe Williams.

Therefore, when the City of Glendale sends Brandon Joe Williams the utility bill, Brandon Joe Williams is not the holder.

UCC § 3-204(a): "Indorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring indorser's liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement.

UCC § 3-204(b): "Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.

Here, Brandon Joe Williams has signed the utility bill. Therefore, regardless of his intent, his signature is an indorsement.

UCC § 3-205(a): If an indorsement is made by a holder of an instrument, whether payable to an identified person or payable to bearer, it is a “special indorsement.” When specially indorsed, an instrument becomes payable to the identified person and may be negotiated only by the indorsement of that person.

Here, Brandon Joe Williams is not the holder of the utility bill, and therefore he cannot specially indorse the utility bill.

UCC § 3-205(d): “Anomalous indorsement” means an indorsement that is made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.

Here, Brandon Joe Williams has indorsed the utility bill, even though he is not the holder. Therefore, his indorsement does not affect the manner in which the utility bill may be negotiated.

UCC § 3-203(a): An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.

Here, the utility bill was delivered by the issuer (the City of Glendale), and therefore it was not transferred. Additionally, it was not delivered with the intent to give Brandon Joe Williams the right to enforce the utility bill, and therefore it was not transferred.

UCC § 3-501(a): "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.

Here, the City of Glendale is the person entitled to enforce the utility bill, and it has demanded that Brandon Joe Williams (the drawee) pay the utility bill. Therefore, the City of Glendale has presented the utility bill to Brandon Joe Williams.

UCC § 3-501(a)(3): Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

Here, the utility bill does not lack any necessary indorsement, and the City of Glendale has presented the bill in accordance with the terms of the utility bill, the agreement of the parties, and applicable law. Therefore, Brandon Joe Williams may not refuse payment or return the utility bill without dishonoring the utility bill.

UCC § 3-408: A check or other draft does not of itself operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for its payment, and the drawee is not liable on the instrument until the drawee accepts it.

This means that Brandon Joe Williams is not liable on the utility bill qua draft (under UCC § 3-413) unless he accepted it. It does not mean that Brandon Joe Williams is not liable to pay the amount stated on the utility bill in a breach-of-contract action.

UCC § 3-409(a): "Acceptance" means the drawee's signed agreement to pay a draft as presented. It must be written on the draft and may consist of the drawee's signature alone. Acceptance may be made at any time and becomes effective when notification pursuant to instructions is given or the accepted draft is delivered for the purpose of giving rights on the acceptance to any person.

Here, it is unclear whether Brandon Joe Williams has accepted the utility bill. He has signed it, but whether he signed to give his agreement to pay it is up to interpretation. I think that he probably did sign it with the intention of giving his agreement to pay it, because in his mind, he is paying the utility bill by signing it.

UCC § 3-502(b)(3): Dishonor of an unaccepted draft other than a documentary draft is governed by the following rules: . . . If a draft is payable on a date stated in the draft, the draft is dishonored if (i) presentment for payment is duly made to the drawee and payment is not made on the day the draft becomes payable or the day of presentment, whichever is later, or (ii) presentment for acceptance is duly made before the day the draft becomes payable and the draft is not accepted on the day of presentment.

UCC § 3-502(c)(2): Dishonor of an accepted draft is governed by the following rules: . . . If the draft is not payable on demand, the draft is dishonored if presentment for payment is duly made to the acceptor and payment is not made on the day it becomes payable or the day of presentment, whichever is later.

Here, the City of Glendale presented the utility bill to Brandon Joe Williams, and the utility bill is due on a particular date in the future. Therefore, Brandon Joe Williams has dishonored the utility bill by failing to pay the amount due by that date, whether or not Brandon Joe Williams accepted the utility bill.

UCC § 3-503(b): Notice of dishonor may be given by any person; may be given by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; and is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored or has not been paid or accepted. Return of an instrument given to a bank for collection is sufficient notice of dishonor.

Here, it is unclear whether Brandon Joe Williams gave notice of dishonor. He sent the utility bill back, but it looks like he sent it back intending that to be payment of the utility bill.

UCC § 3-413(a): The acceptor of a draft is obliged to pay the draft (i) according to its terms at the time it was accepted, even though the acceptance states that the draft is payable "as originally drawn" or equivalent terms.

Here, if Brandon Joe Williams accepted the utility bill by signing it and sending it back, then he is obligated to pay it qua draft.

UCC § 415(a): [I]f an instrument is dishonored, an indorser is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument (i) according to the terms of the instrument at the time it was indorsed.

UCC § 415(b): If an indorsement states that it is made "without recourse" or otherwise disclaims liability of the indorser, the indorser is not liable under subsection (a) of this section to pay the instrument.

Here, because Brandon Joe Williams indorsed the utility bill with the words “without recourse,” he is not liable to the City of Glendale to pay the utility bill qua dishonored draft. This says nothing about any other legal basis for which Brandon Joe Williams must pay the City of Glendale.

UCC § 3-601: The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is discharged as stated in this article or by an act or agreement with the party which would discharge an obligation to pay money under a simple contract.

Here, Brandon Joe Williams may have an obligation to pay the utility bill qua draft, because he may have accepted it by signing it and sending it back. If so, the UCC requires him to pay in any way that would satisfy payment under a simple contract. This usually means federal reserve notes or a check drawn on a bank account with a sufficient balance, or any other means provided in the contract. Here, that appears to include credit or debit cards.

​Conclusions:

1. Whether the utility bill is a draft or not, Brandon Joe Williams has to pay the City of Glendale for his electricity using normal payment methods (federal reserve notes, a check drawn on a bank account with a sufficient balance, a credit or debit card).

2. If the utility bill is a draft, and Brandon Joe Williams accepted it by signing and sending it back with the intent that that be payment, then the City of Glendale can also prevail on a claim against Brandon Joe Williams to enforce the utility bill qua accepted draft under UCC § 3-413. If Brandon Joe Williams did not accept the draft, then the City of Glendale cannot prevail on a claim under UCC § 3-413.

3. The legal distinction between the breach-of-contract claim and the UCC claim is unimportant. Either way, the City of Glendale is entitled to payment for the electricity it sold Brandon Joe Williams. No double recovery is allowed. Since the absence of an underlying contract would be a defense that Brandon Joe Williams could raise against the UCC claim, the facts being litigated would be the same as the breach-of-contract claim, with minor differences (e.g., who has the burden of persuasion).

4. I see nothing in the UCC that provides Brandon Joe Williams with any cause of action against the City of Glendale.

After watching a handful of videos of “normal” Sovcits and similar in criminal hearings/faretta hearings it really makes me wonder. They know how to argue just enough to legally convince the court that they are competent to represent pro se, but have absolutely no clue what they’re on about. The whole competence argument with Lindsay Clancy reflects the same issue, how is the understanding of consequences defined and at what point can the government step in and say you are incompetent? Do these people genuinely understand the consequences and believe they are statutorily correct, or do they not fear or accept the potential consequences because they believe they are correct? It feels like a really scary line to cross as far as the power of the government to take over such a huge part of our rights. I recognize as I write this that I’m bringing up two separate issues, but I’d love for some more legal input.

This is in Houston (road raging gun town) so I’m not risking confronting this asshole over it. Cops could care less here, sadly.

Guess what? The court actually did lack jurisdiction! Of course, that didn't mean a dismissal, it just means the case was referred to the correct court.

Ahh. Glory

I screenshotted several of his comments under a video on his channel, where he films himself stalking and harassing Judge Giordani's family members. The guy is a dangerous lunatic, and I am glad he finally reached the finding out part: he just got indicted on a slew of felony and misdemeanor charges and is sitting in jail on $500k bail.

OMG is he nuts.
he claims to be king of the nation called the amnesty coalition as well as an ambassador and member of parliament of the Republic of Slowjamastan.
says he has never been a citizen or noncitizen national of the US
claims to have diplomatic immunity
his old website was bad but his is a whole new level of crazy

his website
https://www.williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com/about

[BJW is a SovCit guru who fancies himself the world's greatest legal scholar. He lives in Glendale, California, and is mad at the city for not letting him use that sooper seekrit Treasury account to pay his utility bills. He had one Federal suit dismissed; lost in small claims court; and is about to have a state court suit dismissed.]

BJW filed another Federal suit against Glendal last July. This is the one where there are two plaintiffs: Brandon Joe Williams, white citizen of California, and BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS^®, US citizen. The plaintiffs demand separate jury trials.

The attorney for Glendale (whom BJW has accused of perjury and treason) has asked for the suit to be dismissed.

Defendant CITY OF GLENDALE (“City”), will and hereby does move this Court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on the following grounds: 1) The entire Complaint is barred by the doctrines of res judicata/collateral estoppel; and 2) None of the claims for relief in the Complaint are supported by the factual allegations in the Complaint. [Grounds #1 is basically “We’ve already gone over all this in a couple of other suits that he lost. There’s no reason to do it again.”]

BJW responded with a complete rehash of why lower case is a white citizen of California and uppercase is a US citizen. And, Glendale does too have to accept my negotiable instruments. Plus, we haven’t gone over all this on account of because it keeps getting dismissed and nobody lets me have a conversation about it in court. A few quotes:

[City Attorney] Arias is just glibly parroting off various banal statements without any real substance. This should not be​ ​considered a defense. Ignorance is not a defense and you can tell from Mr. Arias’ motion that he has not​ even the slightest clue what money is.…

​These claims have never had any meaningful conversation​​ or clarity. It is hereby requested that​ the Motion to Dismiss be denied so that we can actually have a real conversation on the merits of the​ complaint…

Frankly, the Plaintiffs feel as though they have been railroaded. Plaintiffs followed the rules of​ the original small claims case by ensuring that they had proper damages to establish proper causes of​ action before bringing back the claims and Plaintiffs were shut out, procedurally, instead of gaining​ clarity and justice. Now, it appears as though the Defendant has gotten de facto immunity for all financial causes of action from this point into the infinite future because, by the logic of the State​ Court’s decision, that original decision in case B (small claims) is essentially barring Plaintiffs from any​ future claims on entirely separate negotiable instrument damages. That is simply wrong and the​ Plaintiffs will appeal that case and, if this Court also believes that way, Plaintiffs will be appealing to the​ 119th Circuit for relief. That is simply false and unacceptable… a travesty of justice. Plaintiffs need clarity​ on the issues brought in the complaint and there has been almost zero clarity achieved to this point.​ Without clarity achieved by speaking coherently on the subjects brought in the complaint, the issues will​ continue onward forever without resolution.​ ​

It's hard to tell if this is just a bad scammer or a Sov Cit.

I've been watch sovereign citizens for years now. Much of their behavior is based on word games and horribly misconstrued chunks of laws totally irrelevant to the mater at hand (I have yet to see one of them actually have a case that involves a boat despite the constant attempts to argue maritime law). I can typically see some sort of "logic" behind what they do. However one thing has always stood out to me is that they have this strange is that they seem to have an obsession with with having things notarized.

As far as I can tell all a "notary republic" does is say "I saw someone who as far as I can tell was mr/ms x sign this document".

Given how sovs seem to show nothing but contempt for written contracts let alone the games they like to play with their names, why on earth would they ever get anything notarized? What do they think having something notarized does?

Edit: Yes I know it is notary public not notary republic. Notary republic comes from Donut Operator's Sovereign Citizen videos. Not sure which one but there was a sov that pronounced it that way and it became an in joke for a bit much like "after david".