First of all, she is absolutely WRONG about what she is saying. Second, she is wrong in a way that puts her in danger in multiple ways, in terms of being forced to stop, charges for evading, etc. which could affect her in the future, etc. And no, her beliefs don't correspond to what is in the constitution.
What I find interesting is she, like most faux sovereign citizens, don't deal with a desire for justice, they just want to get their way, or get something for nothing. They squeal like pigs over paying traffic tickets, paying their mortgages, etc. And those are contracts that they sat down, considered, could have reviewed, got counsel on, etc. There was "mutual assent" as to the terms. Yet, they find these types fo things "unfair" to them.
But they also find it fair for them to (try to) impose a 300k charge for pulling her over, probably for a valid traffic viol. Where is the mutual assent? And then there is the problem that it isn't a contractual situation at all, she just read a bunch of gobbledygook and so is acting in such a way that could get her hurt or jailed or imprisoned. In my neck of the woods an evading charge is a minimum 18 months on top of whatever else.
A lot of these sovereign heros' case outcomes are known, and they often don't end well. If they get lucky someone will cut them a break for being stupid. But that's a bad gamble. It didn't work too well for jenna herring: http://www.11alive.com/news/article/267820/40/Woman-chased-b...
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, a