Sovereign Citizen Claims Police Can’t Stop Him — Judge DISMANTLES Him

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-02

[00:00:04][music] [music] >> Mr. Resto, um so Mr. Resto, you have two cases. You have um count case number >> What happens when someone walks into court believing the law doesn't apply to them? That's exactly what we're seeing here. The defendant believes his valid Alabama license should cancel out multiple Georgia charges tied to a suspended license. But once the judge starts explaining the real legal consequences, the entire mood changes fast. This hearing includes many of the same right to travel arguments often seen online. The defendant insists police should not interfere with him while driving. But the judge quickly explains that traffic laws, licenses, and road safety rules are all backed by real law and legal precedent. What makes this case stand out is how calm and patient the judge stays throughout the hearing. While the defendant keeps repeating constitutional arguments and trying to negotiate directly with the court, the judge keeps bringing the discussion back to reality. Fines, probation, repeat offenses, and possible bond problems. The court gives him several chances to speak with an attorney and properly resolve the case.

[00:01:27]But he continues focusing on arguments the judge already explained won't work.

[00:01:32]So as this hearing unfolds, ask yourself this: Does the defendant truly believe these arguments will save him, or is he struggling to accept the reality of the situation?

[00:01:43]>> You hear me?

[00:01:44]>> Yes, I hear you.

[00:01:45]>> So you're before the court on 2019 CR 04954 for driving on a suspended or revoked license, no license, failure to display license, uh for your or failure to have license on person. I'm not sure it cuts off. And no tag or expired or invalid tag. So, that's on the first case. On the case from 2020-03114, you have a suspended or revoked license.

[00:02:12]You're represented by Lister & Holt on one of the cases, but not on the other.

[00:02:16]Did you want Lister & Holt to represent you or did you want to represent yourself?

[00:02:21]>> Uh I'll represent myself.

[00:02:23]>> On both cases?

[00:02:25]>> Uh yes, yes, ma'am. Uh I have a quick question as far as uh law concern when it comes to your driver's license.

[00:02:32]>> Okay.

[00:02:33]>> Okay.

[00:02:34]You're only allowed to have one driver's license, and I have I have a Alabama driver's license. So, when I get pulled over, I actually showed them my Alabama driver's license, and it's current. It's the most current. And so, they make a determination if they should go off the Georgia driver's license or the Alabama driver's license. And when I present the Alabama driver's license, they let me go because my Alabama license is valid. And you're only allowed to have one, and I had Alabama license.

[00:03:09]So, my case >> this sounds like a not guilty.

[00:03:11]>> Okay.

[00:03:12]So, Mr. Resto, what Mr. Taylor is saying is this is something that you could prove at trial. If you present that information at trial, then that means you want to go to trial instead of taking a plea. I don't know what the recommendation is, and I don't know >> the the recommendation was um I think I was I've been dealing with this case for a awful long time now. So, I don't really want to go to trial. I just want to get it behind me, but I think that the recommendation I remember the recommendation quite clearly. They offered me 40 hours of community service. Is that still on the table?

[00:03:48]>> Okay, no, Mr. Resto. It's more than that. So, let me explain why I know it's more than that. So, the basic fines and fees for driving on a suspended license is the first time in 5 years if you get one, then you're you can enter a nolo plea if you have a nolo plea eligible to you. And then the fine is $500. But, if you get a second one, the fine goes to $1,000. A third one, the fine goes to $1,500 and 10 days mandatory jail time.

[00:04:18]You have a second one, which means that you might be able to enter a nolo to the first one, but then the second one is outstanding. So, when you took a plea to the second one, that would definitely suspend your license. So, that that's what's on the table.

[00:04:33]>> Okay.

[00:04:33]>> And it and the fines are hefty. So, you would get a plea >> This is the moment the case becomes serious. The judge explains that repeat offenses come with much larger penalties, including heavy fines and possible jail time. A lot of people don't realize judges can't simply lower fines because someone asks. Many penalties are already written into law.

[00:04:55]The judge also keeps encouraging him to work through an attorney. That's important because lawyers understand how plea deals and negotiations actually work. The defendant keeps trying to negotiate directly with the judge, but that's not how the process normally works. This is also where representing yourself can become risky. Instead of focusing on reducing the damage, the defendant spends most of his time arguing legal theories that courts have rejected many times before.

[00:05:23]>> $500 fine, which is 737.50, but the next one is going to be a thousand in addition to that, and that's 1420. So, we're looking at almost two three thousand almost two thousand 25 2200 dollars.

[00:05:40]>> I your honor, uh is Mr. Resto represented on the particular case that we're referring to?

[00:05:46]>> Well, I know you to listen to me directly if you're representing it because this is a serious matter.

[00:05:52]>> I get you. So, that's why I'm saying Mr. Resto, you have representation I can allow you to be represented by on both cases and they can help you work this out. But, understand that >> was already I was already represented by Lister and Holt and we kind of been going back and forth with the uh district attorney's office for a while and you know, they've been giving recommendations and you know, I I still didn't take it, but uh they've been giving me recommendations. I don't know what's changed, but um it definitely wasn't $2,000.

[00:06:26]>> Um talk to your attorney and let them tell you what the recommendation they have on the table, okay? Cuz the recommendation, if you're represented, even if you're only out represented on one case, the rec is probably going to come to your attorney.

[00:06:42]>> Okay, now does the if I enter like a or motion of dismissal based on constitutional grounds, uh are you standing on your constitutional oath?

[00:06:52]>> Okay, I'm I'm I'm not sure what that is. So, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to make sure that I treat people um as the law would direct me to do so. So, >> well, I I asked this question uh previously when I was in your courtroom one day in regards to the uh right to travel under the 14th Amendment stating that citizens uh do not need a permit to travel with a horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile without interference by police and I was on a public highway actually when I got pulled over.

[00:07:28]>> Okay, so that That's not actually in the Constitution.

[00:07:33]>> And I don't know what the right to travel was before the 14th Amendment was ratified.

[00:07:38]>> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Taylor.

[00:07:39]>> I just uh wanted to point out to the court that automobiles hadn't been invented when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

[00:07:46]>> Yeah, it says it says it says automobile, horse-drawn wagon, or carriage.

[00:07:52]>> Okay, so >> So an an automobile is not necessarily a car, but it's a household good.

[00:07:58]It's it's just a form of transportation.

[00:08:00]It doesn't matter if it's an automobile, horse-drawn wagon, or carriage.

[00:08:05]Because it's still a form of transportation and citizens have the right to travel without interference by police. So, I don't even know how the police are even allowed to interfere with travel when I'm not using my vehicle for commerce.

[00:08:20]>> Uh your honor >> And it's it's a totally private household good.

[00:08:24]>> Okay, so Mr. Resto, if somebody drove 100 miles an hour into the back of your vehicle um and killed your a family member, would you want the police to interfere?

[00:08:35]>> Uh that's that's uh murder. I mean, that's that's if someone got killed.

[00:08:40]>> But they're traveling.

[00:08:42]You can't interfere with somebody traveling.

[00:08:45]>> No, I mean, you can't you you can't It's stated that a police just can't interfere with your traveling, like pulling you over for a traffic violation or, you know, a tag.

[00:08:57]>> But you want them to interfere if somebody >> murder somebody because >> Well, okay, say you don't mur- murder them. Say you just hurt them. Say you just damaged the vehicle. You don't want the police to interfere.

[00:09:09]>> No no no that because that that's when it almost become like an accident or a crime or whatnot. So, the police can That's not really an interference. An interference with your traveling not an interference when two citizens engage in an accident. It's interfering with you just traveling. Now, police officers as far as public servants, they have a duty to serve to the people. So, if a car accident occurs, then of course, public servants as far as ambulance, far as firemen, they will come to the scene just as a service. But for you to just interfere in my traveling is actually a violation of the Constitution.

[00:09:49]>> Well, sir, the Constitution and the and the cases that have come out of the constitutional jurisprudence allow cities and states and municipal organizations to regulate travel for the benefit of the citizens. So, they can put reasonable regulations on travel, meaning they can have you can have a license. They can grant you the privilege of having a license to drive.

[00:10:18]They can regulate how your license is take is seen if you don't have a license or if your license is suspended, they can intervene to take your license away or your privilege to drive away. You could it is a crime. You can be convicted of not driving under a proper license. So, the government is allowed to intervene in a lot of ways with people traveling. So, I'm not sure where this information comes from, but there's a lot of stuff on the internet about traveling and the 14th Amendment and horse and buggies and even maritime law, but >> I mean automobile automobile was actually created before driver's license was ever created.

[00:10:59]>> Notice how quickly the conversation changes once money becomes part of the discussion. Earlier, the defendant focused heavily on constitutional arguments, but once the judge explains the fines could total thousands of dollars, he immediately starts trying to negotiate. The judge explains something important. These fines are set by law.

[00:11:19]Courts cannot simply bargain over them however they want. This is also why the court keeps telling him to work through his attorney. Lawyers know which parts of a case can be negotiated and which cannot. By this point, the confidence from the beginning of the hearing is clearly starting to fade.

[00:11:36]>> So, people was actually operating their case pamphlets where people was actually operating vehicles before a driver's license ever became. That's actually Y'all Y'all You guys are actually a conflict of interest actually far as you being in cahoots with the DMV. That's a totally separate entity.

[00:11:53]>> Okay. So, Mr. Resto, do you want to uh resolve the case because it's not worth it?

[00:11:59]>> 40 times I disagree I disagree with the with the with the fine amount because it changed. I would pay a I would make an offer like I can do a $1,000, maybe 12-month probation.

[00:12:09]>> Mr. Resto, but $2,000 that's excessive.

[00:12:13]Mr. Resto, we're not negotiating. Those are statutory fines, meaning they're written into the law. I can't even change them.

[00:12:20]>> Can Can I make a counteroffer to the state and say it's it's $1,000? Is that Can I be cuz I did do time in jail. If the state would see that and count >> That's why I'm saying that you may want to speak with an attorney because certain things that they can negotiate I can't change the statute. I can't change what's written in it, but they can negotiate and if the solicitor wants to give you credit for time in jail in lieu of the fine, those are things that they can do that I can't do.

[00:12:47]>> Yeah. Yeah, so so I would ask to the uh district attorney uh knowing that I I I did serve some days in jail, can you guys modify and I just go ahead and end this case right now? I can I can do a thousand I got a thousand dollars right now.

[00:13:02]>> Mr. Mr. Resto, so that's a conversation that you need to have with them directly without me being present. Number one.

[00:13:10]Number two, the reason I keep saying you might want to go through your attorney is because they can explain to you what is already on the table and how that may or may not change, okay?

[00:13:21]>> What What What's on the table now? Now?

[00:13:23]>> I don't know. That's what I'm saying. I would rather you have that conversation in a breakout room with your with the attorney who's assigned to your case and with the state as opposed to here in the main room. One, because I have other cases that need to be addressed. And two, because that's not information I need to hear.

[00:13:43]>> Okay, is it is it anything I can do to get this case resolved now because it's been lingering on for >> I'm telling you what to do, but you're not listening, Mr. Ruster.

[00:13:52]Mr. Ruster, >> today like I want to resolve this today.

[00:13:55]>> I get that you want to resolve it today and I'm telling you what to do, but you're not listening to me. I said you can go into a breakout room with your attorney. And the attorney and you can discuss what's already on the table and then if your attorney wishes to speak with the state to clarify anything, they can do that, too.

[00:14:13]But you're not going to get it resolved by going back and forth with me because there's stuff I cannot do.

[00:14:20]>> Okay, um just tell the state that I'll take the recommendation. I'll just pay the 2,000 if they can give me 12 months to pay it off.

[00:14:28]And if I can and if I pay it off early, if my probation would be terminated, that would be great.

[00:14:32]>> That's right. I was discussing with Mr. Ruster and I understand something changed about his bond.

[00:14:41]>> Okay.

[00:14:42]Uh he has bonds with two bondsmen. I don't I mean, I don't know of anything. Does he have Did he Did somebody come off a bond?

[00:14:52]>> Uh your honor, maybe I can uh address that question.

[00:14:55]>> Okay.

[00:14:56]>> Ruster, uh our office filed a motion to revoke bond.

[00:15:01]And that motion uh was granted to Rodney C. Uh and it was calendared.

[00:15:07]Uh that motion didn't happen because of the pandemic. It was I believe scheduled to happen in uh 2021, maybe February, but somewhere uh about that time.

[00:15:19]Uh I I Mr. Kamoni to inform his client that depending on the uh outcome of today's uh arraignment, uh the state proceed intends to move forward on that bond revocation.

[00:15:32]>> Your honor, may I make a request on that matter? The show in person for that uh for him uh Zoom court is uh a remote appearance is not sufficient.

[00:15:44]>> By the end of this hearing, the entire tone of the case had changed. What started as confident constitutional arguments slowly turned into damage control once the defendant realized the court was focused on real law, repeat offenses, fines, and possible bond issues. The biggest lesson here is simple. Courts rely on evidence, legal procedure, and established law, not internet theories or personal interpretations. Throughout the hearing, the judge stayed calm and professional while explaining that states absolutely have the authority to regulate drivers and enforce traffic laws. This case is also a reminder that refusing legal advice and relying on unsupported arguments can make a bad situation even worse. If you enjoyed this courtroom breakdown, make sure to like the video, share your thoughts in the comments, and subscribe for more courtroom drama and legal analysis.