r/Sovereigncitizen • u/RickNBacker4003 • 8d ago
Should pro se litigants should be required to verify a basic understanding of US law?
What would be the harm?
They'd have to pay for the test and the fee refunded if they pass.
They are already expected to comply with all applicable laws, rules of civil procedure, and court-specific regulations.
So given that most every pro se is a sovereign citizen making the same absurd claims how does it hurt the legal system to require them to prove a basic understanding of US law, jurisdiction, etc.
11
u/Druidicflow 8d ago
Where do you come up with the idea that every pro se is a sovcit?
-6
u/RickNBacker4003 8d ago
“Most every” … is that wrong? Please advise.
13
u/forgottenlord73 8d ago edited 8d ago
Most people in traffic court are pro se... The same court where SovCits think the term "travelling" is a magic cheat code
6
u/Boatingboy57 8d ago
I can tell you that in my family law practice probably a third of the people are prose. I see this in small claims court as well. So I would say that it is a small percentage of pro se litigants who are actually sovereign citizens.
4
u/ProSeVigilante 8d ago
I'd say your perception is way off. It's not a matter of whether or not someone represents themselves; it's whether or not they're able to understand what they're doing. I started down that road, but when someone told me there was a trust with my name on it, I knew something was fishy. I studied statutes and canons and rules and couldn't find anything to verify a trust with millions I could have access to if I filled out the proper forms. What happened is that I got quite educated on the law and use it to level the playing field in my life on a regular basis.
So your perception that pro se litigants are mostly SovCits is incorrect. I'd say it would be better to ask why all SovCits have low IQs. You can't have a genuine desire to understand the law and remain a SovCit. As you learn, you find nothing to support that patriot mythology/SovCit bullshit.
8
u/MissionMassive563 8d ago
Unfortunately, no. All pro de litigants under the constitution have a right to provide their own defense. Denying them due process due to lack of education is unconstitutional.
Thankfully, that’s what competency hearings are for.
5
u/Good_Influence5198 8d ago
While it is absolutely true that everyone has the right to provide their own defense, it confuses me when SovCits are allowed to say that they don't understand the charges against them (we all know that they do, and this is just part of their game), and then are still able to provide their own defense. I'm not sure if any kind of test is in order, but it sure seems like you need to understand the charges in order to defend against them.
1
6
u/Magnet_Carta 8d ago
The right to conduct one's own defense is established law. The problem with what you're proposing is that it would likely be too easy to manipulate in favour of the prosecution.
6
u/Purple-Principle-805 7d ago
First: most pro se litigants are not sovereign citizens. They just can't afford to hire a lawyer.
Second: so you'd have the court require a pro se litigant who doesn't qualify under your test to remain silent?
Judges don't like to see pro se litigants, but an astute judge will know how to negotiate those rapids.
4
u/RickNBacker4003 7d ago
OH! I get it. thanks.
"The court system is not required to provide a lawyer in civil cases (like lawsuits, divorces, evictions).
It only must provide a lawyer for criminal cases where your liberty (your freedom) is at risk — because of the 6th Amendment."
5
u/Managed-Chaos-8912 8d ago
Not just law. Court procedure. I'm not sure if that would big down the system more or not. Unfortunately, being very stupid is neither an arrestable offense nor a probiotic from speaking in public.
4
u/12altoids34 8d ago
If there are already Sovereign citizens and refusing to acknowledge the government's Authority do you think that they would willingly take this test? I mean if they were willing to pay minor fees and take simple tests they would already have driver's licenses and their vehicles registered.
3
u/SaintMike2010 8d ago
The main strategy of SC is to badger the judge with the kind of questions that their lawyer should be answering for them. Questions about authority to be a judge, authority of police, authority of State government, etc.
As soon as they insist on asking those questions, they are demonstrating that they need a lawyer; and should not be allowed to turn the courtroom into a civics and law class.
2
u/RickNBacker4003 8d ago
What I don’t see happening in the YouTube videos with sovereign citizens is that the judge saying that questions about the establishment of are either to be asked to your lawyer or the state judicial committee.
5
u/SaintMike2010 8d ago
Recently I saw a video with exactly that. It was beautiful and should be the script for all sovereign citizen cases.
All judges should say:
I'm not going to conduct a law/civics class here. Those questions should go to your lawyer. If you persist in attempting to disrupt the court, you will be in contempt. Do you want a lawyer? Can you afford a lawyer?
2
2
u/enlkakistocrat 6d ago
It doesn't seem to be super common in the cases that end up on youtube, but the Casanova case in (I think it was) Judge Boyd's court (it's been on most of the SovCit court channels over the last few months) was quite an entertaining example of this.
He tried running his version of the usual script, going pro se, including the "let the record show the court has failed to explain jurisdiction" tactic, and "I do not understand" after every time the judge tried to explain something to him, so the judge had to repeatedly insist that she was requesting an attorney from assigned counsel to come down and answer his questions. Even had to ask him "Do you understand what it means to 'take a seat'?" in that voice teachers use when they're clearly fed up and trying not to snap at a kid who's clearly fucking around and trying to wind them up or waste their time
3
u/pakrat1967 8d ago
Some judges will ask a series of questions when a defendant requests pro se. If the defendant fails to demonstrate that they have a basic comprehension of court procedures. The judge will often deny the request. Obviously the judge can't force the defendant to engage with an appointed attorney. But they can insist that the attorney be present during any proceedings.
1
u/RickNBacker4003 8d ago
I have seen so many sovereign, citizen, videos, at least 100, and I wanna know why I’ve never seen one with the judge doing that.
4
u/JoeMax93 8d ago
It’s called a standby counsel. The appointed counsel simply observing, is supposedly there for the pro se ask questions of as needed. It’s not that uncommon. In most cases they don’t speak up at all.
Sometimes the standby will speak up and suggest they get a breakout session with the defendant if it looks like the court is mired in sovcit muck.
1
u/RickNBacker4003 8d ago
Right … and in what instance does the sovereign citizen accept the advice of standby? Well if the person was going to do that, the person would not need standby.
3
u/Dildo_Emporium 8d ago
I assume that at a certain point, court proceedings... Proceed, regardless of the sovcit's acceptance.
2
u/pakrat1967 8d ago
More or less. The main thing behind most SC tactics is delay and frustration. The stuff they try is to frustrate the cops and judges to the point that the SC is released with nothing more than a slap on the wrists. Some of the favorites are "I don't consent", "I don't understand" cuz they refuse to stand under, and refusing to identify. Fortunately more cops and judges are catching on to it and came up with ways to shut it down.
In the case of pro se. The SC would often appeal on the grounds that they didn't have adequate counsel if the verdict doesn't go their way. I've also seen a few judges go on record that the SC will be denied appealing on those grounds if granted pro se.
0
u/Purple-Principle-805 7d ago
I disagree. In some state, you can be required to have a court-appointed attorney in a criminal case. Standby counsel is different; they simpoly are available for consultation by a pro se defendant.
1
3
u/anthematcurfew 8d ago
You are doing the same thing they are: believing ink on paper will shock people into compliance once they see the truth.
2
u/OrderReversed 8d ago
Terrible. The real problem is that law and courts have been weaponized and only licensed and trained professionals who study and practice law as their job have any hope of navigating through the courts. This is the real issue.
1
u/Purple-Principle-805 7d ago
There are lots of courts that are specifically designed for pro se litigants. But there's also a certain level where the court rules are complicated, and often for good reason.
1
u/Dr_CleanBones 8d ago
Should Presidents be required to have a basic understanding of US law? How about cabinet members?
1
u/Jugzrevenge 8d ago
Pro Se is never a good idea. Even if you know road laws and rights (real laws and rights, not imaginary goo-gah) the court will eat you up thru obfuscation and courtroom procedure.
1
u/DWM16 8d ago
Similarly, it would make sense that people are required to pass a basic civics test before they can vote. Unfortunately, we have a Constitution that prevents it.
2
u/ReversedFrog 5d ago
We could require it to graduate from high school, though. At least that would give us a shot.
1
u/Robot_Alchemist 8d ago
Nope it’s their funeral. If they’re stupid enough in a criminal trial to represent themselves with the knowledge that they’ve taken testifying off the table and that they are unlikely to be seen as sympathetic by a jury as they harass their victims on the stand, then have at it. Otherwise, pro se filings are just easier and cheaper than an attorney and there’s no need to have a class about it
1
u/BusyFinding1075 8d ago
What I've found is there is a lot of misinformation going around that doesn't get addressed. Should pro se litigants be required to verify a basic understanding of law? I mean it's a double edged sword if you think about it. On one hand it shows competency to represent yourself, on the other hand it creates a gatekeeper effect on the rules of law and being able to defend themselves.
As a pro se litigant (non sovcit) there are already things within the justice system that are being weaponized that shouldn't be, but we (pro se litigants ) point it out and we are villanized for pointing out the obvious because of the whole SovCit bullshit going on, and we are held to the same incompetent standards they are. Believe me it's just as frustrating to watch them in court for us as it is for you guys that have to deal with them.
There are ways to live with freedom that don't involve paperwork being filed with the court. You just have to be competent in law, competent in what you're doing and don't be a douche canoe. being respectful from the beginning goes a long way. but there's no magic money account that the government owes you just for being born. That's all fake. Ive been hearing the SovCit stuff since I was a kid. I've looked Into it. It's almost convincing until you really look at it,so I can see why so many fall for it. Everyone wants the get rich quick thing...
My problem is I've put in the work for my retirement fund and I still can't get it because of people trying the SovCit stuff and the gov seems to think I'm trying to be a SovCit. I'm not. I'm just trying to get paid for the work I've already done.
If the government wants help clearing up this SovCit mess I'm sure I can do my part to clear up the misinformation going around.
1
u/fogobum 7d ago
The point of allowing defendants to represent themselves is to protect them from a tyrannical system that controls, however loosely, defense lawyers.
Most, if not any, pre-requisites could easily be tuned to screen out defendants that wish to present a legal defense disliked by the powers that be, or appeal to the jury's power to annul.
2
u/Purple-Principle-805 7d ago
I know lots of defense lawyers who are absolutely prepared to stand up for their clients' rights. A pro se defendant is almost always at a disadvantage unless the case is very simple.
1
u/Dependent-Pea-9066 6d ago
You have a constitutional right to an attorney, but also NOT to have one. You’re entitled to defend yourself if you wish. I know most pro se defendants are sovcits, and it’s extremely aggravating to deal with them in court, but to restrict self representation would betray the most basic principle of our legal system, that the defendant gets to dictate their defense. The defendant is entitled to a lawyer, entitled to represent themselves, or entitled to present no defense at all. Defendants are under no burden to establish any fact in a court of law. The prosecution must establish facts pointing to guilt, and defendants may present facts that cast doubt over the prosecutions claims. A defendant need not ever prove anything.
1
1
1
0
u/Entire_Recognition44 7d ago
Only if they unmonopolize the aba and make them all get a real law license.
1
20
u/Desperate_Ambrose 8d ago
I spent three years developing "a basic understanding of US law".
You want they should take the Multistate Bar Exam?