“Sole prop” = sole proprietorship. That’s BJW’s term for the strawman created by your birth certificate. Among other things, he’s based that on a definition of “sole proprietorship” in a law about grants to small businesses to attend trade shows.

He’s planning to test this theory in the new group he created on Skool. [Skool is a social media platform that allows you to charge people to join your group. A quick look showed me a lot of dubious “get rich on the Internet” schemes, woo-woo spirituality, and “Men! Grow taller with my scientific method! Only $30/month!”.]

So if a white man can split himself between a State citizen and his sole prop (14th Amendment citizen), why couldn't a black man do the same?

The only real difference is the black man would not be able to touch the Bill of Rights directly in Federal court... but his sole prop could. He has no access to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

So in my cases you see a white State citizen with his sole prop. Could you also have a black State citizen with his sole prop?

In a State court application, this would look very similar to my cases. In a Federal application is mainly where you would see a difference in this because... if you look at my case 15 you see me make direct causes of action out of the first ten Amendments. A black citizen of a State would not be able to do that.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

ONJ posted a very interesting panel of judges on the topic of vexatious litigants, but part of the discussion focused specifically on sovereign citizens and the best way to deal with them in court. I find the judges' perspective on the topic very interesting, especially since I see a ton of comments under those sovcit videos where people say stuff like "the judge should have held them in contempt" or "weak judges can't control their courtroom," along with other backseat driving from people with little familiarity with the judicial system. Unsurprisingly, the real world is much more nuanced. Judges have to balance a bunch of conflicting factors and, most of the time, they choose a specific strategy very deliberately. The discussion about sovereign citizens starts at 6:41, though the entire panel is worth listening to, IMO.

A thought occurred to me. Pickleboy is a scientologist which means he signed a billion year contract. He also has to pay an ungodly amount of money to get to the bridge and learn about xenu. I wonder if he signed the contract before he became a sovvie? If so, has he used negotiable interests to pay his debts to L Ron and David Miscavige? I wonder if he's tried these tactics on his own "religion." One day he ought to discuss his relationship with the CoS and his standing with them. It would make sense though, a scammer following a scam cult. Maybe all the FRNs he takes from his followers gets funneled to the cult? I mean the dude claims to charge tens or hundreds of thousands of dollarydoos to help screw over people in court, yet his power gets turned off for weeks? Food for thought.

This would apply to their house catching fire too. If they don't believe any restrictions from the government don't apply to them, realistically they should understand that any benefits don't apply to them too. I'm sure I already know the answer, but I wonder how they would argue it.

This person at least admits to studying the game tape from other more traditional SovCits attempting their scripts… can’t tell if he’s a new breed of SovCit or not though, thoughts?

I was rewatching some old Kim Blandino hearings and it was mentioned by DA that he went through a competency evaluation, and while declared competent, he was diagnosed with "narcissistic and schizotypal personality disorder with obsessive traits". I got curious about what it meant and had to do a bit of research, and interestingly enough, but not surpizingly, it matched his observed behavior perfectly. Here what I found. Word of caution - I'm not a psychiatrist, and this is purely from what I was able to find on Wikipedia, in the DSM, and with a little bit of AI to double-check my findings.

When an evaluator hands down a diagnosis like that, they are essentially describing a "mixed personality" profile pulling from three completely different clusters in the DSM-5. When you break it down, it explains almost every strange thing he does in the courtroom.

1. Narcissistic Personality Traits (Cluster B)

Characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a distinct lack of empathy. It involves an inflated sense of self-importance, an unreasonable sense of entitlement, and a profound belief that one is uniquely "special" and should only associate with, or be judged by, other high-status individuals or institutions.

First, you have the Narcissistic traits. This covers the sheer grandiosity and entitlement. It explains why he treats sitting judges and prosecutors like they are beneath him, and why he firmly believes he can out-lawyer everyone in the room despite having no formal training. Because his ego cannot tolerate the idea of being legally wrong, any loss or reprimand gets immediately rationalized as systemic corruption, bias, or jealousy aimed at him.

2. Schizotypal Personality Traits (Cluster A)

Defined by a pervasive pattern of severe social and interpersonal deficits, accompanied by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior. A defining hallmark is "magical thinking" - the psychological belief that one's specific thoughts, words, or rituals can directly influence reality in ways that defy normal causality - alongside pronounced paranoia, suspiciousness, and odd speech.

Then comes the Schizotypal component, which brings in heavy paranoia and "magical thinking". This is really the psychological fuel behind sovereign citizen and pseudo-legal arguments. People with these traits genuinely believe that if they just recite the right obscure phrase, demand a judge's oath of office, or cite the Uniform Commercial Code, it will act like a legal binding spell that forces the court to drop everything. Pair that with intense paranoia, and suddenly routine judicial procedures are interpreted as an active, coordinated conspiracy against him.

3. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Traits (Cluster C)

Involves a pervasive, extreme preoccupation with rules, lists, details, orderliness, and mental and interpersonal control, at the total expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency. This perfectionism strictly interferes with task completion, causing individuals to become so bogged down in technicalities that the major point of the activity is entirely lost.

Finally, the Obsessive traits (drawn from Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, which is distinct from OCD) explain the sheer volume and rigidity of his filings. This is what turns someone into a classic vexatious litigant. Instead of looking at the actual legal charges against him, he hyper-fixates on clerical rules, paperwork technicalities, and procedural minutiae, burying the docket in hundreds of pages of unreadable motions. He cannot adapt, and no amount of direct warnings from the bench will ever convince him to drop a point once he gets it into his head.

Put all three together, and you get someone who is completely convinced of their own genius (Narcissistic), fundamentally detached from legal reality (Schizotypal), and compulsively driven to grind the gears of the court forever (Obsessive). Which describes Kim Blandino perfectly.

This an old one; I love the way the judge handles the sovcidiot.

https://youtu.be/9qVC0-mRPIk?is=L2a-wPtLUfyyxga3

Not a Sov cit but a pro se who is such a colossal asshole and thinks he knows more than the anyone, including the judge, that I just felt like sharing for anyone else who has an hour and half to waste watching this guy lose both his mind and his money.

https://youtu.be/diHMr6BdV-o?is=Bg76Rx58LoJoXbgF

Using antique treaties, claiming ambiguous membership with indigenous tribes, insisting on being called “the man Patrick,” spamming nuisance filings filled with legal nonsense, etc.

ONJ is uploading old Kim Blandino court hearings that haven't been published previously, and this one is extra spicy. This is from a previous case where he was accused (and eventually convicted) of threatening a judge, and the DA is asking to remand him since he continues to send threatening letters to other judges and refuses to comply with a competency evaluation order. Kim Blandino is fuming mad at this hearing, and looking at those old hearings, I don't see him getting worse - he was always a mentally unstable, insufferable prick.

Someone went for a custom plate!

Some people never change.

I saw court hearing and he was complaining about being taken to a compentcy hearing like “Hannibal Lecter.” Here is what that would look like.

Files motion to disqualify judge, but wants judge to deal with all the "problems" he's facing.

Hope this counts. Normally don't find these in the wild

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.

I think I saw this posted here previously, but I can't find it. Anyway, it's the most literate dismantling of sovcit ideology I have ever seen. The defendant got off because of an error by the police, not because of his pseudo-legal arguments. (This was in Canada, so I wouldn't assume that the reasons for the acquittal apply in the U.S.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7haZ3ekuSg

I don’t think that flat-earthers believe their own crap. They seem to feed off of the attention that the group brings more than how the math proves them wrong.

I see this same behavior in some SovCits. Perticularly the SovCits who harp on the all caps straw man entity entity along side the living breathing person. In my opinion, these SovCits directly echo the flat-earthers’ denial of reality in an effort to get attention. I’ll illustrate.

We’ve all seen h there courtroom arguments where a SovCit claims to have paid their rent using the all caps straw man’s bank account. If you took one of these all caps dual entity SovCits and paid them in SovBucks - drawn it the bank of Trustee Equity - they wouldn’t accept it. No SovCit would accept their own beliefs if put to the test.

This is why I see a direct correlation between attention seeking flat-earthers and attention seeking SovCit behavior.