Trends: Darrell (Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction) Brooks
The Indefensible Defense of an Offending 'Sovereign Citizen' Defendant who 'Doesn't Know Jack'
As the verdict comes out today, the Media is set aflame with rejoicing or condemning (depending on your specific flavor of political insanity) regarding the results of this case and other legal speculation. This writer wants to take a closer look at the argument presented by the indefensible defendant, specifically the 'Sovereign Citizen' argument.
For those who aren't aware, this movement is nothing new. I have spent considerable time and resources researching this line of inquiry over a decade ago (like herpes, it keeps coming back). For me, that line of research culminated in a fascinating discourse with a local judge and multiple federal prosecutors. They were far more receptive to the arguments and considerations presented than any transcript reads for Darrel Brook's arbiter of justice - Judge Jennifer Dorow.
I'm not going to chastise this particular judge, who appears to be young and relatively inexperienced in the arena of fringe judicial arguments. Instead, if I could say but one thing to this public servant, it would be a word of caution. Steamrolling a defendant's opinion(s) is the easiest way to make a martyr out of a murderer in the eyes of the public. So, please, moving forward, heed and refrain where possible.
With that being said, let's consider both the declared objection by Mr. Brooks and the media's asinine and inappropriate treatment of the core of this defense:
The phrase "Sovereign Citizen" is an oxymoron if I've ever read one. One cannot be a "Sovereign" and a "Citizen" simultaneously, especially within the confines of a Republic. See here:
sovereign
sŏv′ər-ĭn, sŏv′rĭn
noun
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as.
A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
and its opposite:
citizen
sĭt′ĭ-zən
noun
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
A civilian.
These two concepts are literally in opposition to each other. Their very joining in one descriptor is the definition of disingenuous by both the Media and Legal Pundits. This descriptor is a common criticism often thrown casually and ignorantly, which can only further add to the ignorance of those who don't know, and the ire of those who do.
Need it to be said: A Civilian cannot become a Sovereign, and a Sovereign is definably the basis of Authority from which all Citizenship and Subjectship establish its derision, whether based on official and codified Office, personhood, or otherwise.
(See Further: United Kingdom Monarchy - Where does the King's Power Come From?)
Anyone living in the UK or the greater English Commonwealth of Nations, a union of 56 nations representing 2.5 Billion people worldwide, is legally and inherently a Subject of the British Crown.
sŭb′jĕkt″, -jĭkt
adjective
Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others.
Therefore, once more, the Media is attempting to obfuscate the core argument made by Darrell Brooks and others before and after him wishing to entertain this defense. Yet, this is only half the story.
Note: I am not an attorney or legal representative and cannot provide legal advice. Nothing within this document should be considered beyond illustrative for academic consideration and media criticism under Fair and Free Use laws.
Without Prejudice, within and in entirety.
To start, the word-smithing of the Media and Legal pundits on this particular case is not even remotely surprising but highly annoying. As one can read from the various articles that will undoubtedly flow from this case, everyone's immediate and knee-jerk reaction is to criticize the inapplicability of Mr. Brooks' attempts at entering an invalid 'Legal Defense' for judicial consideration. This reference relates to the specific and sanctioned legal defenses that may be presented and argued within a court of any particular authority, as it relates directly to the charges.
The pundits are attempting to say that Mr. Brook's argument is outside the legal scope of consideration for a defense to be valid. The valid defenses on the charge of Murder generally include but are not limited to:
Mistaken Identity
Self-Defense
Defense of Others
Killing in the name of Duty
Pleas of Insanity and other Circumstantial Objections
https://www.kohlerandhart.com/articles/common-defenses-against-murder-charges/
As you can see, nowhere is it mentioned or suggested that an individual may enter or argue a defense relating to immunity. The exception is cases involving individuals with established or granted immunity from an authority with the power to grant such an exemption - Like the United States Bureau of Diplomatic Service under the State Department with a special temporary exemption granting 'Diplomatic Immunity. Other forms of immunity include Prosecutorial Immunity, which is usually granted to guilty witnesses, like in the case of the infamous Jeffrey Epstein and the rare instances of Presidential or State Governor Pardons as they relate to Federal and State Jurisdiction.
Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks, he was never issued an exemption, as evidence of such an exemption would pre-empt charges during the due diligence stage of an investigation. In the cases of Foreign Nationals with DI exemptions, they are not immune from prosecution within their own home countries. Especially for any act considered a crime with the laws of that nation (Eg: Murder). The State Department also reserves the right to withdraw or revoke any DI exemption case-by-case basis.
Since that's out of the way, lets now consider Mr. Brooks' arguments as he might have presented them if given a chance:
The basis of this argument is relatively simple: Mr. Brooks is attempting to claim either the ultimate authority of self-governance, the application of the 'Common Law Doctrine,' or the 'Law of Societies' argument.
Reigning in Brooks and Regents
Since I've already defined and alluded to the 'self-governance' defense above, I'll point out the irony of a self-identified citizen operating a State Registered Motor Vehicle under a Motor Vehicle Operators License during his infamous crime. Though not a widely known fact, the Queen of England herself (and, by extension, the now-enthroned King Charles) is immune to the requirements of these universal registrations and licenses within the Commonwealth. The Queen has never held a driver's license, which legal basis is created in her name under her authority as supreme monarch. The sheer irony of a monarch prescribed to the limits of their authority, which is limitless functionally (though under limitation by a few Acts of Parliament), is hilarious from an intellectual perspective. Though unchallenged historically (to my knowledge), the Monarch's power and immunity as Supreme is theoretically ultimate. Thereby, suppose the reigning regent or supreme of England walked into a busy London street and unloaded a fully automatic firearm into a crowd. In that case, it's not entirely known if that act of violence would even be a legally recognized crime (though undoubtedly unlawful). Considering all state actions within a Commonwealth are, in fact, under the Authority of that Supreme: such an act could lead to a fascinating Constitutional Crisis.
(This issue is often discussed as it relates to Presidential Powers, not only in acts of war but also personally. For example, can a President Pardon themselves while in Office? Can a President pre-empt a crime with a pardon, or would they even need to?)
(I'm going to say it worked out for Dick Cheney.)
Application of Common Law Doctrine
“The common law is law that is not written down as legislation. Common law evolved into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in making later decisions in similar cases. The common law cannot be found in any code or body of legislation, but only in past decisions.”
For most people, the most immediate cultural or cinephile reference I can make would come from the 2010 Al Pacino movie "You Don't Know Jack." Wherein the actor in one particular scene dresses as a circa 18th Century Colonial Judge (complete with powdered wig) as a form of insult. At the same time, the activist judiciary in the film struggles to define a legal offense in their pursuit of the infamous Jack Kevorkian (Medical Euthanasia Activist). I won't include a still of the scene due to copyright, but if you are a Pacino fan, you probably recall.
In opposition to Mr. Brooks’ potential legal position, Mr. Kevorkian petitioned the counter - such that Common Law Doctrine need not apply to Citizens of the Republic as its application was ‘outdated’ within the specifics of his case and Congress never ratified the Doctrine of precedent being imposed. Ultimately (if I recall correctly), this was his demise, as the collective basis of Case Law, as enshrined within the Doctrine of Common Law (with roots dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215), still forms the basis of Judicial decisions, especially in unique situations where Congress has made no law.
Most obviously, this would be a futile attempt by Mr. Brooks as Murder, Property Damage, and Assault are all well established as no-nos both presently, historically, and biblically (another source of governing precedent initially forming the basis of established Case Law - 'Thou Shall Not Kill')
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but as an avid fan of the history of Law and the founding of Nations, the rare cases of case law application in the absence of Congressional Ratification are fascinating.
Law of Societies
This obscure theory, which I believe has its roots within the Canadian "Freeman" movement, relates to a relatively simple but interesting argument, which is:
Laws govern societies, and those laws only apply to that Society's members. As the Law of Societies dictates, all members of a Society MUST know the name of that Society to claim membership. (You can't be a member of something you can't identify)
Therein, the theory asks:
‘If you are a member of a Society Governed by laws,
what is the name of the Society you claim membership within?’
Of course, this is a question without an immediate answer. Ask any American Citizen, or in fact, any citizen in any country, this question, and you will receive all sorts of confused reactions. However, the specific proponents of this theory go on to suggest an exciting line of inquiry: The laws of this nation only apply to registered members of its Legal Society as the construction and enforcement of all rules within this country are written, interpreted, and enforced by those representatives in various capacities (See: The American Bar Association). Furthermore, according to this theory, most Americans claim no membership (or fail the membership test mentioned above) to any Society governed by these laws - they are, in effect, inapplicable and invalid.
Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks, once again, even in the event of invalidation of all Laws of Congress, State Legislatures, and our various Federal Regulators and their infamous use of memorandums - Judicial Precedent would still, in some capacity, apply to the crime of Murder. Whether that judgment is passed by an Appointed or Elected Judge or enacted through the immediate formation of a Citizen's Tribunal or even from the Native American model of prosecution and judgment, the "Talking Circle."
In conclusion, Mr. Brooks, you have no standing to oppose our processes and absolutely no grounds for any moral outrage or objection leading to Jury Nullification.
You, sir, are guilty, as judged by a panel of your peers, and justice was rightly ruled (pending possible appeal).
As always,
Farewell, and Good Luck.
-Dark Philosopher
Forecasting Trends
These types of legal cases and arguments will continue. The intoxication of the argument coupled with depreciating economic factors will lead to further increases in Pro Se (Self) legal representation, forcing Officers of the Court to de-structure process, simplify language, and alter judicial training and public relations. It will also impact future legislation, the judicial appointment process, and judicial elections (where applicable)
Future Black Swan Possibilities
Major Cases could gain national attention leading to the formation of Citizen Tribunals or Panels as an alternative to the Judicial Process following an outcry from national backlash.
It may start as Cultural Movements (Native, Blacks, Hispanics) demanding equality before the courts before tracking nationally.
National or Regional Movements gaining traction from singular or multi-variable events culminating in surprising outcomes
E.g., Anti-Federal Taxation Groups and Constitutional Purity Testing
Article Updates
October 28th, 2022 - Grammar
November 16th, 2023 - Layout, Format, Signature