I’m still knee-deep in these people, so I thought I’d update my previous post with some more observations. Below is Part 2 of my notes and conclusions. Here’s a link to Part 1 if you missed it.
1. They are utterly obsessed with “Maxims of Law.” Maxims of law are just basic, broad, foundational statements about what the law should be. “Promote the general welfare,” “ensure good government,” “equal justice for all.” That kind of stuff. Perfectly acceptable, but so general as to basically be just platitudes. But not to the Sovvies; they think “maxims of law” supersede everything. That you can override a statute that says “all persons need a license to operate a motor vehicle in this state” by asserting “That’s discrimination under the maxim of law that all people are equal!” Or some shit. But maxims aren’t statutes, and they aren’t binding, they’re just, essentially, slogans. They don't overrule anything.
2. They love to talk about the part of Marbury v Madison that says that “any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” This statement is neither false nor controversial. But so what? It’s not useful for your average SovCit. It just means that once a court declares a law unconstitutional, it’s now null and void. Sovs seem to think it means THEY get to declare a law unconstitutional, and then not obey it.
3. They also love to talk about 18 USC 241 and 242. These are federal criminal statutes that make deprivation of rights under color of law (i.e., by a person acting in their capacity as a government official but doing something they have no authority to do) a crime. 241 is for conspiracies and 242 is for individuals. Neither of them say what, exactly, constitutes “deprivation of rights.” All they do is make it a crime to do that, and criminal charges can only be brought by the DOJ, not any rando on the street. But the Sovs love to talk about them everywhere they go. They make Facebook posts about them, put them on signs, shout them, etc. These are their favorite statutes, even though, essentially nobody is ever charged under them (about 40 people a year). And even though they don't define any crime, they just make offenses that already exist elsewhere in the law into crimes.
4. Their grievances are ill-defined. Often you’ll meet a SovCit who can rant endlessly about the “corrupt court system,” and how “cops, lawyers, and judges are all conspiring against the people,” “the people need to rise up against this tyranny!” or whatever. But what, exactly, the grievance is is never defined. You can’t get a straight answer to the questions “What are they doing wrong? What is incorrect about the current system or the people who practice in it?” They'll bob, dodge, weave, change the subject, or just respond with more generalities. In other words, there are Sovs who are absolute gold medalists at bitching, complaining, and conjuring conspiracies, but can’t actually articulate what it is they’re angry about.
5. There are two new SovCit arguments we’re going to start seeing. These are the ideas that I'm seeing getting flexed on social media right now. Expect to start seeing them pop up in real courtrooms soon.
a. Judges can’t be impartial because they work for the state and so do the prosecutor and the public defender. While this may sound plausible at first, it falls apart as soon as you apply a little scrutiny. Just because two people are agents of the state doesn’t mean they always agree. AOC and Andy Ogles are both members of Congress, but have they ever agreed on anything? Furthermore, judges, PD’s and ADA’s all answer to different people. ADA’s serve at the pleasure of the DA, PD’s work for the chief public defender, and judges are elected or political appointees. There may be a chief judge of their jurisdiction, but that person doesn’t have hiring and firing capability. That’s not how judges work. Also, the three jobs are to do fundamentally different things: each of them has a boss that wants them to do something different. They maintain those roles by adhering to strict codes of conduct, for which there are disciplinary consequences if you break them. And even if none of that impresses you, there’s still the catchall SovCit response: “Oh well, that’s how it works, so, you’re stuck with it.”
b. The Constitution says all cases in which a state is a party must be heard before the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction. This comes from Art. III, Sec. 2, Para 2., which says that cases in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Except the meaning of that clause has definitively been ruled on. State v. Phillips, 149 N.C. App. 310 (2002) explains that the clause just clarifies the clause before it, which lists a bunch of types of cases justiciable in federal courts. Anything not in the prior paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with this rule. Not sure how these numpties think the nine justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to hear every single speeding ticket, DWI, shoplifting case, kid caught with a beer, etc. in America, every day, but no one ever accused the SovCits of being smart.
