Monthly Archives: May 2022

THE TRAFFIC STOP

When a Baxter County sheriffs deputy stopped the vehicle in which Sanders was a passenger on December 22, 2021 in the Midway area, she proclaimed that as a sovereign citizen she was not required to provide any identifying information to the deputy.

Members of the sovereign citizen movement believe in a somewhat convoluted alternate system of law.

When she was asked to get out of the vehicle, she refused; again saying that would violate her rights as a sovereign citizen.

As she was being assisted from the vehicle she is alleged to have kicked one of the deputies involved in her arrest.

After she was brought to the Baxter County Detention Center, she was processed through the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) database and identified.

It was determined that Sanders had an active arrest warrant at the time.

METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND

During the process of determining Sanders identity, the booking officer at the jail reported a white powder-like substance had been found in the bottom of her bag.

The substance field-tested positive for methamphetamine.

As her charges were being read to her, she refused to listen or sign any paperwork.

VEHICLES NOT SUBJECT TO LAWS

One of the beliefs attributed to SC members is that any vehicle they happen to be in is not subject to rules, acts, statues or legislation that apply to everyone else.

When involved in a traffic stop, they often claim they are traveling, not driving, and that traveling is a God given right that cannot be infringed on in any way by any agency of government.

Many SC members refuse to buy insurance for their vehicles, do not have a drivers license and wont buy or display license plates.

REFUSE TO PAY TAXES

Some sovereign citizens also refuse to pay taxes. One SC member was reported to have sent in a blank return to the IRS. He claimed that providing the information would violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

As a broad protest against paying taxes, a majority of courts have ruled that the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination argument does not stand up.

A 1921 Supreme Court case is often cited in cases dealing with refusing to file a tax return on Fifth Amendment grounds.

In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that if a defendant truly believed information required on the tax form would be incriminating, the taxpayer should raise that issue on the form, but could not simply refuse to file.

A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE LAW

The SC movement members often use arguments based on erroneous readings of the law, or laws seemingly plucked from thin air.

They tend to employ a confusing, quasi-legal vocabulary during encounters with law enforcement officers and the courts.

WebReadyTM Powered by WireReadyNSI

Originally posted here:
Woman claiming to be 'sovereign citizen' pleads guilty to charges - ktlo.com

Now may be a good time to max out your investments in airlines, car rental agencies and intercity bus companies. Travel has picked up as the pandemic has ebbed, but the Supreme Court could give it an extra boost by revoking the constitutional right to abortion.

The pro-abortion rights Center for Reproductive Rights has predicted that with Roe v. Wade gone, abortion would remain legal in twenty-one states and likely would be prohibited in twenty-four states.

Vast swaths of the continent would become abortion-free zones free of legal abortions, anyway. But Americans have been traveling to get what they want since the Pilgrims arrived, and women with unwanted pregnancies are no exception.

In the days before Roe, when the procedure was illegal in most of America, places such as New York and Washington state had lots of visitors who didnt come for recreation. Some 40% of all abortions were performed on patients outside their home state.

Already, liberal states are a destination for desperate abortion seekers. Illinois, surrounded by states that have greatly restricted access, saw nearly 10,000 women come from out of state to get abortions in 2020, the Tribune reports. Planned Parenthood said that number may quadruple if Roe falls. We are on the verge of a wave of abortion refugees.

But anti-abortion advocates are not likely to accept this outcome as inevitable. A bill was introduced recently in the Missouri legislature to bar its residents from getting abortions out of state.

Republican Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman told Politico: If you believe as I do that every person deserves dignity and respect and protection whether theyre born or unborn, then of course you want to protect your citizens, no matter where they are. Though her measure didnt pass, it will undoubtedly inspire other states to enact their own bans.

That would be a radical step, but radical is a term of endearment in the anti-abortion movement. It would be a terrible idea, though, and one at odds with our entire system of federalism.

One of our fundamental freedoms, long recognized by the Supreme Court, is the right to travel within the United States and be treated as an equal citizen from sea to shining sea. A state government can no more burden the freedom of its residents who venture out of state than it can burden the freedom of migrants from out of state.

In 1969, the court struck down a California law imposing a residency requirement for public assistance. It said the rule violated the right to travel and amounted to an unconstitutional discrimination which violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

For a state to assert its power over citizens beyond its borders would be an act of extreme presumption. Decades ago, when Nevada was the only state with legal casinos, everyone could go there and gamble without fear of bluenoses back home.

The same limits apply today. Utah can ban recreational cannabis, but its residents may drive to Colorado to get high. California may forbid the open carry of guns, but it cant stop Angelenos visiting Arizona from packing in public view.

As University of Pennsylvania law professor Seth Kreimer has written, one basic principle of American federalism is that each citizen may take advantage of the liberties offered by any state. This arrangement also contributes to our national civic peace by accommodating a diversity of policies.

Anti-abortion advocates may argue that their cause is different because it involves life and death. Not so. A New Yorker who kills a fellow New Yorker in Atlanta and is acquitted under Georgias stand your ground law cannot be convicted under New Yorks less lenient statutes.

Conservatives, who champion state sovereignty, should recognize that only one state can be sovereign within its borders. Otherwise, every state could extend its policies into the other 49 states.

The right should also beware of handing a new weapon to progressives. If a state can punish conduct that takes place in another state, Connecticut, which bans assault weapons, could imprison a resident who uses one for target shooting in Maine. The possibilities for liberal mischief are endless.

If and when the enemies of Roe win their greatest victory, they will be tempted to seize every possible method of exploiting this success. But even the long reach of the law needs limits.

Steve Chapman writes for Creators Syndicate. He can be reached at stephen.j.chapman13@gmail.com.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Read more:
Steve Chapman: States that want to ban residents from getting out-of-state abortions have a problem: Federalism - Chicago Tribune

When Deborah Foss, a 66-year-old grandmother in New Bedford, Mass., bought her home in 2015, she expected it would be where she would live the rest of her life in comfort and security. But by February of this year, she had been forced from her home and is now reduced to living in her car.

What went wrong? With chronic health problems and living on a fixed income, Foss fell behind on her property taxes when she hit a rough financial patch. Thats when the city sold a $9,626 tax lien on her home to a private investment company. Under Massachusetts law, the lien gave the company power to take full title to her property when she didnt pay her debt quickly enough. The company evicted Foss and quickly sold the property. Almost before she could grasp what was happening, she had lost her home and $210,000 in equity.

Foss is just one victim of a form of tax foreclosure that is perhaps best described as government-approved home equity theft. People who fail to pay their property taxes in all states risk losing their homes. But most states will sell the property to the highest bidder, collect whats owed, and return the remaining proceeds, which at least offers some protection to the property owner. Massachusetts is one of only a dozen states that allow the government to snatch up someones entire hard-earned savings to benefit the government or private investors.

In my legal work on this issue, Ive met many victims of home equity theft. They are usually hard-working people who suffered financial hardship, often stemming from medical problems, or who hadnt received notice or understood their property was in jeopardy. They never imagined something like this could happen in the United States.

Take Uri Rafaeli, who lost his Michigan rental and all his equity in it when he accidentally underpaid his property taxes by $8. He fought all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court to prove the county had unconstitutionally taken more than he owed. Rafaeli recovered his home after his court win, but most people arent so lucky.

Lynette Johnson lost her small commercial property when the city mailed the tax notices to the wrong address. The city sold her property for $101,000 to a private investor when she failed to pay. Although she owed less than $20,000 in taxes, penalties, interest and fees, the city kept every penny. (My firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, is a pro-liberty public interest legal organization that has provided, or continues to provide, free legal support to Foss, Rafaeli and Johnson).

It doesnt have to be this way, which is why were fighting back in court. Weve filed lawsuits in various states challenging the constitutionality of home equity theft as a violation of property rights protection under the Fifth Amendment. Courts in different jurisdictions disagree about whether it is constitutional, so it may require a Supreme Court decision to settle the question.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are engaging in a bipartisan fashion to address the problem through the legislative process. Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin recently fixed their laws to end home equity theft. Bills that would end predatory tax foreclosures are pending in Massachusetts, Minnesota and California.

That may be bad news for companies that have found a profitable niche weaponizing foreclosures against the most vulnerable. It means county and municipal officials who have been sharing in the bounty will have to forego these cozy arrangements that generate windfall revenue for local governments. But these reforms will be a big win for the property owners who are callously targeted in these perverse tax foreclosures.

Not all states are getting it right: a Minnesota case has lost at the Eighth Circuit with a petition to the Supreme Court on the way and legislation stalled in Arizona.

Perhaps predatory tax foreclosures have been allowed to continue because most people are unaware that this regularly happens in their state. Right now, that list includes Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oregon. And a few more states will sometimes engage in this kind of predatory foreclosure when the government desires the property to fulfill some other public use.

We all understand that people are required to pay their taxes and that those who dont will experience consequences, and sometimes foreclosure. But the government should not be allowed to take the life savings built up in these properties. The more Americans learn about how the government targets people such as Deborah Foss, Uri Rafaeli and Lynette Johnson, the less they like it and the more likely they are to demand the government stop the theft.

Weve made tremendous progress in pushing back on the unjust practice of home equity theft in recent years now we need a strong push to make these predatory foreclosures a thing of the past.

Christina Martin is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and leads PLFs initiative to end home equity theft. Follow her on Twitter @CMM123.

Read the original post:
Massachusetts grandmother lost her savings to tax foreclosure law - The Hill