SOVEREIGN CITIZEN Claims “No Jurisdiction” — Judge SHATTERS Every Excuse

Claims no contract with public defenders so they can't represent him — BS (15/100)

At 0:00

Public defenders are court-appointed by law, not hired via personal contract — sovereign citizen classic.

Why this score: No legal basis for the claim. - Public defenders are assigned by the court under the Sixth Amendment, not by private contract - The "no contract" argument is a well-known sovereign citizen tactic that courts consistently reject - The judge's immediate "You what?" reaction shows this is not a recognized legal position

Original quote: “I don't have I don't have any contract with public defense uh public defenders office. ... I don't have any contract with the public defenders representing me.”

Sources: Can a public defender refuse to represent someone?, Can a public defender refuse to represent a client if they believe the client is guilty

Claims the court lacks jurisdiction over him — BS (15/100)

At 2:30

Sovereign citizen 'no jurisdiction' line — courts have ruled this nonsense for decades.

Why this score: Classic sovereign citizen argument with zero legal basis. - U.S. courts consistently reject 'no jurisdiction' claims from people trying to opt out of laws - The defendant is physically in court facing state charges, giving the court clear authority - No recognized legal doctrine lets individuals declare themselves exempt from criminal proceedings

Original quote: “This court does not have jurisdiction.”

Claims court lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction because it's a trust matter — BS (10/100)

At 4:30

Sovereign citizen 'trust matter' line is the same script judges hear every week — courts reject it every time.

Why this score: Standard sovereign citizen argument with zero legal basis. - Courts have repeatedly ruled these 'trust' and 'strawman' theories invalid - No statute or case law supports jurisdiction vanishing over a vehicle tow - The judge is required to proceed regardless of the defendant's fringe legal theories

Original quote: “I want to make a oral motion for dismissal based on the fact of uh the lack of probable cause and also the the lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction based on the fact that this is a trust matter”

Claims police and towing company acted under 'color of law' so jurisdiction doesn't apply — BS (5/100)

At 4:35

'Color of law' claims don't erase jurisdiction — they just get you laughed out of federal court too.

Why this score: Misuse of 42 USC § 1983 language. - 'Color of law' refers to officials acting under government authority, not a loophole to escape charges - Doesn't remove state court jurisdiction over traffic or criminal matters - Federal claims require actual constitutional violations, not magic words

Original quote: “the private uh conveyance that was um stolen by the third party Wall Street towing um and impounded on the uh the colorful act uh the colorful law actions of uh officer for Trobridge of the Washington County Sheriff's Department”

Claims Michigan is a fictitious entity with no injured party so no crime occurred — BS (0/100)

At 4:45

Michigan being 'fictitious' is peak sovereign nonsense — the state has locked up plenty of people who tried this.

Why this score: Classic 'no victim, no crime' sovereign argument. - States prosecute crimes against the public, not just individual victims - Traffic and criminal statutes don't require a private injured party - Every court in the country has rejected the 'state is a corporation' theory

Original quote: “also I have not been able to uh um as of constitution amendment six uh being able to face my accuser. Um, with the state of Michigan being a fictitious entity and there's no uh injured party, there's no crime that had been committed”

Claims court has no jurisdiction because it's 'trust property' — BS (10/100)

At 6:30

Sovereign citizen 'trust property' argument gets zero traction in any real court — pure fantasy.

Why this score: No legal basis for the claim. - Courts have repeatedly rejected 'sovereign citizen' trust and jurisdiction arguments as frivolous - 'Foreign trust' language is typical sovereign citizen word salad with no statutory grounding - Judge correctly notes the motion makes no sense at this stage

Original quote: “this is trust property. So this court doesn't have jurisdiction to adjudicate over the foreign trust.”

Offers 'certificate of security' to settle charges — Dubious (50/100)

At 6:37

Dug deeper — the evidence is genuinely split here.

Why this score: Some sources discuss this, but the specific claim isn't independently confirmed. [Online Privacy and Security Certification Service Settles FTC Charges | Federal Trade Commission](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/02/online-privacy-security-certification-service-settles-ftc-charges).

Original quote: “I'll be able to supply you all with the adequate assurance uh certificate of security to settle and offset charges.”

Sources: Online Privacy and Security Certification Service Settles FTC Charges | Federal Trade Commission

Judge explains no probable cause hearing yet — next stage — Verified (95/100)

At 6:50

Judge correctly lays out the actual process. Rare to see someone this patient with the nonsense.

Why this score: Accurate statement of criminal procedure. - In most jurisdictions a preliminary examination or probable cause hearing comes after initial appearance - Judge correctly identifies the current hearing is not that stage - Explains the defendant's confusion without escalating

Original quote: “We haven't even had the probable cause hearing. There will be a determination at the next stage as to whether or not there's probable cause regarding the charges.”

Insists 'demir' and standing mute are different and judge has no degree — BS (5/100)

At 8:30

Telling a sitting judge they have 'no legal degree' while mangling basic procedure — peak sovereign citizen energy.

Why this score: Standing mute is the standard record when a defendant refuses to plead. - A *demurrer* is a formal written challenge to the charging document, not an oral plea option. - Judge correctly states the two concepts are not equivalent and that the defendant lacks understanding of the terms he's using.

Original quote: “I never pleaded uh Deir. Uh there was... Deir and mute are two separate things... You have no legal degree. They are not. They are not. They are not the virtually the same thing.”

Prosecution must prove both a crime and an injured party — BS (15/100)

At 10:30

That's the classic sovereign-citizen script — courts don't require an 'injured party' for criminal cases.

Why this score: Core sovereign citizen myth. - Criminal law is between the state and the defendant; no private victim is required for charges like traffic or drug felonies - This exact argument has been rejected in every U.S. jurisdiction for decades - The judge's later warning shows he's heard this nonsense before

Original quote: “the prosecution needs to prove that a crime was committed and under um they also need to show and prove that there is an injured party for the crime to have even been committed.”

Defendant accuses judge of bias for denying extra week — Opinion (30/100)

At 14:30

Calling routine scheduling 'bias' after rambling through the hearing — classic sovereign move.

Why this score: No evidence of bias. - Judge already gave multiple continuances - Defendant never filed the promised jurisdiction documents - Accusation is a deflection tactic, not a legal argument

Original quote: “I mean, I've I was on the call. I've heard you give multiple councils extended times. So what what is the bias?”

Claims to be executive of a trust and estate owner, not the individual charged — BS (15/100)

At 16:30

Straight out of the sovereign citizen script — rebrand yourself as a trust to dodge jurisdiction.

Why this score: No such exemption exists. Key issues: - Courts have rejected these trust/estate word games for decades - The person physically in court is still the defendant facing charges - Judges treat this as frivolous and move forward anyway

Original quote: “Uh I am a Tariq Maritar uh the executive of the Tariq Maritar Lang Trust and the registered owner of the Tariq Maritar Explacion King Wilson estate.”

Cites UN and American declarations on indigenous rights to claim exemption — BS (15/100)

At 18:30

Those declarations don't give individuals immunity from criminal court jurisdiction

Why this score: Declarations are non-binding recommendations, not get-out-of-jail-free cards. Key issues: - UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples is aspirational, not domestic law - Neither document grants sovereign immunity or exempts people from court rules - Judge correctly notes speaker has "no authority" for this argument

Original quote: “according to the American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples as well as the international uh or the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples”

Claims court lacks jurisdiction because he is indigenous — BS (15/100)

At 20:30

Sovereign citizen 'indigenous lands' dodge — Michigan courts still run on Michigan law, not vibes.

Why this score: No legal basis for this argument. Key issues: - Michigan Supreme Court rules apply regardless of personal identity claims - No recognized exemption for self-declared 'indigenous' status in standard criminal proceedings - Courts have consistently rejected similar sovereign citizen jurisdiction arguments

Original quote: “Oh, I am an indigenous person. ... Well, if you were on indigenous lands, if that's where you're going, then maybe you might be right. As it stands right now, this proceeding is not on indigenous land.”