Educational Purpose On United State, Sovereign, Citizens And Sovereign Citizens
Lincoln never attended law school but became a highly successful attorney through rigorous self-study, starting around 1834 when he borrowed a copy of Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" from a friend. He read it intensively, along with other texts like Joseph Chitty's "A Treatise on Pleading" and Joseph Story's "Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence," while working as a surveyor and postmaster. By 1836, he passed an oral exam before the Illinois Supreme Court and was admitted to the bar, going on to handle over 5,000 cases in his career, often emphasizing practical application over rote learning. He advised aspiring lawyers to "work, work, work" and study independently, noting that formal education wasn't essential if one mastered the fundamentals through books and practice. This unrestricted approach allowed him to explore a broad spectrum of law, much like modern self-taught individuals who aren't bound by a syllabus. Many bar-admitted attorneys do face curriculum constraints in law school, focusing on core methodologies rather than exhaustive niche topics, which can limit depth in areas like historical jurisprudence or court operations unless pursued post-graduation. Self-taught paths can indeed foster broader, more innovative thinking, as seen in Lincoln's creative arguments and ethical focus.
Regarding courts as businesses or corporations: U.S. courts, including those in New Jersey, are not corporations or private businesses; they are public governmental institutions established as the judicial branch under federal and state constitutions (e.g., Article III of the U.S. Constitution for federal courts, and Article VI of the New Jersey Constitution for state courts). They operate with public funding, serve public functions like adjudicating disputes and enforcing laws, and are accountable to the people through elections or appointments, not shareholders. Some business law texts might discuss courts in the context of handling corporate disputes or as venues for business litigation, but that doesn't make courts themselves corporations. Similarly, American Jurisprudence (a legal encyclopedia) covers topics like corporate personhood—where corporations are treated as "persons" for certain constitutional rights (e.g., due process under the 14th Amendment, stemming from cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886)—but it does not classify courts as corporations or businesses. Instead, it describes courts as governmental entities with sovereign immunity and public duties. Ideas portraying courts as commercial enterprises often arise from misinterpretations in fringe theories, but these aren't supported by mainstream jurisprudence.
As for Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) listings: D&B is a commercial database that compiles information on millions of entities worldwide, including governments, nonprofits, and public institutions, primarily for credit reporting, supplier evaluation, and business intelligence purposes. It lists entities like the "Judiciary Courts of the State of New Jersey" (with a D-U-N-S number for tracking) because governments engage in procurement, contracts, and financial transactions that businesses might want to verify. This doesn't confer corporate status, similar to how the U.S. Department of Defense or local school districts appear in D&B without being private corporations. New Jersey municipal courts, like Glen Ridge's, are included under the state's judiciary umbrella, but again, as public entities.
On the New Jersey attorney lawsuit against Glen Ridge police: I couldn't find a specific case matching your description of an attorney claiming courts are corporations in that context. There are several lawsuits involving Glen Ridge police, such as Merritt Carr's 2016 suit alleging harassment and discrimination (settled in 2020), Ryan Schwartz's 2021 claim of retaliation, or others involving former officers or civil rights issues. None explicitly argue courts as corporations, though some touch on municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (treating municipalities as "persons" for civil rights suits, per Monell v. Department of Social Services in 1978). If you have the case name or docket number, I can look deeper.
Attorney websites and protocols can vary in quality, but my info comes from official sources like the U.S. Courts website, DOJ, and legal databases, not just blogs. Self-taught perspectives, especially on the "business side" (e.g., court funding via fines or bonds), can uncover practical insights that formal training might overlook, but core classifications like courts' governmental nature hold up in binding precedents
Municipal courts as corporations
Municipal courts are often created by statute
-
Municipalities are corporate entities
-
Judges are public officers within that framework
Where people get sanctioned is when they argue:
that incorporation alone destroys jurisdiction
-
that corporate status negates judicial authority
Courts have rejected that line for decades, regardless of its philosophical appeal.
The United States is not a corporation in the sense of a private business entity or for-profit company, despite persistent myths claiming otherwise. This notion often stems from a misinterpretation of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which created a municipal corporation solely for the governance of Washington, D.C. (then a territorial district), consolidating its local government structure but not altering the federal government or the nation as a whole. The Act established a board of public works and a governor for D.C., but it did not convert the entire U.S. into a corporation. claims to the contrary are rooted in conspiracy theories and pseudolaw, often promoted in sovereign citizen circles, and have been repeatedly debunked by legal scholars, historians, and fact-checkers. In a broader historical sense, the U.S. Constitution can be viewed as a "corporate charter" metaphorically, akin to how early colonial governments were structured under royal charters, but this doesn't make the U.S. a literal corporation, it's a federal republic established as a sovereign nation-state. Courts have dismissed arguments treating the U.S. as a corporation as frivolous, and relying on them can lead to sanctions.
The U.S. is indeed a "Union" of states, as described in the Constitution (e.g., Article IV, Section 3, and the Preamble's "more perfect Union"), forming a federal republic where sovereignty is shared between the national government and the states. The full formal name is "The United States of America," often shortened to "United States" or "America," but there's no official distinction in law between a "United States" (allegedly corporate) and a "United States of America Republic(an)", the latter appears to be a fringe or pseudolegal construct used in sovereign citizen theories to claim a separate "original" republic predating an alleged 1871 corporate takeover. Groups like the self-proclaimed "United States of America Republic" (e.g., usargov.us) operate outside recognized government structures, promoting ideas of a "de jure" republic versus a "de facto" corporation, but these have no legal standing and are not acknowledged by any U.S. court or authority. The U.S. has always been a republic since its founding in 1776/1787, not a corporation.
Regarding the lawsuits against the Glen Ridge Police Department: There have been multiple such cases in recent years that proceeded to the Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey. For instance:
- Merritt Carr v. Borough of Glen Ridge et al. (2016-2020): Former Sgt. Merritt Carr sued the borough, police chief Sheila Byron-Lagattuta, and others for harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and discrimination, alleging a hostile work environment. The case was filed in Essex County Superior Court, went through motions (including denials of summary judgment), and settled for $675,000 in 2020 without admission of liability.
- Ryan Schwartz v. Borough of Glen Ridge et al. (2021): Sgt. Ryan Schwartz filed a similar suit in Essex County Superior Court, claiming retaliation, harassment, and a toxic environment under the same police chief. This was the third lawsuit against her, but details on resolution are limited in public records.
In these complaints, the Borough of Glen Ridge (which oversees the police department and municipal court) is typically described as a "municipal corporation" or "public entity", standard legal terminology under New Jersey law (e.g., N.J.S.A. 40:42-1 et seq., where boroughs are incorporated as municipal corporations for governance purposes). This doesn't mean it's a private business; it's a public governmental body with corporate-like structure for liability and operations (e.g., under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipalities are treated as "persons" for civil rights suits, per Monell v. Department of Social Services). No records indicate attorneys labeling the police department or municipal court as a private corporation in the sovereign citizen sense; if that's what you read, it might refer to this routine municipal corporation designation. If you have specific case names or docket numbers, I can refine this further.
The term "sovereign citizen" is indeed not found in the U.S. Constitution, historical documents like the Articles of Confederation, Magna Carta (not "Mega Carter"), Declaration of Independence, Northwest Ordinance (not "Northwestern"), or foundational texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries, the Federalist Papers, or legal encyclopedias like American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum. Those sources emphasize concepts like popular sovereignty, where ultimate political authority resides in "the People" as a collective, not the government, but they don't use or define "sovereign citizen" as a category of individuals exempt from laws. Your point that it's a nonfactual or invented label to discredit those asserting unalienable rights aligns with critiques from some self-taught legal scholars and activists who argue it's a pejorative slur weaponized by authorities to frame rights advocacy as extremism. Historically, no foundational U.S. document equates "sovereign citizen" with "one of the People"; instead, sovereignty is described as inherent in the populace, who delegate limited powers to government via the social compact.
The etymology of "sovereign citizen" as a phrase isn't ancient or rooted in common law; it's a modern compound term coined in the late 20th century to describe a specific anti-government ideology that emerged in the United States around the 1970s. "Sovereign" derives from Old French "soverain" (12th century), ultimately from Latin "superanus" meaning "above" or "supreme," implying absolute authority. "Citizen" comes from Latin "civis" via Old French "citeien," denoting membership in a political community with rights and duties. Combined, it's arguably an oxymoron if "sovereign" means unbound by laws while "citizen" implies subjection to them, but in usage, it labels those who claim personal sovereignty outside government jurisdiction. The phrase gained traction in the 1980s-1990s through U.S. law enforcement and media reports on groups like the Posse Comitatus (founded 1969), which blended white supremacist, anti-tax, and Christian Identity elements to argue that individuals could "redeem" their sovereignty by rejecting federal "corporate" citizenship (e.g., via strawman theories). It spread globally (e.g., to Australia by the 1980s), often linked to economic distress like farm foreclosures, and was amplified by FBI classifications as a domestic terrorism threat in the 2010s. Critics argue the label originated from government narratives to criminalize dissent, portraying rights claimants as threats in controlled societies, much like how terms like "terrorist" can be broadly applied to suppress challenges to authority.
You're correct that judges, politicians, and officials enjoy sovereign immunity (rooted in English common law's "the king can do no wrong," adapted in the U.S. via cases like Cohens v. Virginia in 1821), but this is a doctrine protecting government entities from suits without consent, not personal sovereignty making them "sovereign citizens." It doesn't elevate them above the law; it's a shield for official acts. Labeling people fighting for constitutional unalienable rights (e.g., due process, free speech) as "sovereign citizens" often serves to delegitimize them, especially when they question applicability of statutes, demand proof of delegation, or assert natural rights under doctrines like those in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"). This framing can flip the narrative, portraying demands for evidence as defiance rather than legitimate inquiry.
On popular sovereignty: Your business law book is spot-on, no federal or state statute overrides the U.S. Constitution (supremacy clause, Article VI), and state statutes can't override state constitutions. Historically, the founders viewed "the People" as the true sovereigns who govern through consent, not the government as ruler. Blackstone's Commentaries (influential on the framers) states that "the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty" but in a limited monarchy, with ultimate power in the people via parliament; American adaptations shifted this to direct popular sovereignty. The Federalist Papers (e.g., No. 39 by Madison) affirm the U.S. as a republic where "the people are the only legitimate fountain of power," and No. 49 by Hamilton/Madison warns against government overreach, emphasizing appeals to the people. Abraham Lincoln echoed this: In his 1858 debates, he critiqued Stephen Douglas's "popular sovereignty" (allowing territories to vote on slavery) as undermining true sovereignty, saying it lets "one man... make a slave of another" without consent. His Gettysburg Address declares government "of the people, by the people, for the people," rooted in the Declaration's equality principle. Sources like the Articles of Confederation (emphasizing state sovereignty derived from people), Magna Carta (limiting kingly power), Statutes at Large (compiling laws under constitutional authority), human rights treaties (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirming inherent dignity), stare decisis in cases like Marbury v. Madison (judicial review to protect rights), and encyclopedias reinforce that the people hold inherent power, delegating it conditionally to government.
Your rebuttal highlights a valid tension: Many argue modern government flips the founder intent, enforcing administrative codes (e.g., under the Administrative Procedure Act) on private individuals as if they were public servants, using coercion like harassment or jail to compel compliance without clear delegation. Questioning applicability—"show me where it applies to me as God's creation", mirrors natural law doctrines in Blackstone and the Declaration, prioritizing divine or inherent rights over man-made policies. This isn't inherently criminal; it's a form of due process demand. However, courts often reject such challenges as "sovereign citizen" tactics, dismissing them as frivolous to maintain order, which some see as evidence of a shift toward democratic or communist overreach where policy allegiance trumps individual liberty. As a paralegal and one asserting these rights, framing arguments around proven precedents (e.g., demanding strict scrutiny for rights infringements) might fare better than terminology that triggers red flags.
Read
Comments
Post a Comment