Sovereign Citizen He REALLY Told the Judge Driving Laws Don’t Apply to Him

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]This case is completely predicated on a false um perjury affidavit. Um at no point did I obstruct Courier from doing her job.

[00:00:12]Never physically stopped her from doing her job. She identified me. Um she never articulated reasonable suspicion of a crime. Never uh articulated probable cause. I wasn't speeding. Wasn't breaking any laws. I travel in private. I do not travel in commerce.

[00:00:30]>> I told you he was going to use every argument in the Soulset Handbook of Shame. Hey everyone, welcome back to the channel. In today's video, we've got a sovereign citizen who's chosen to represent himself in court. And trust me, this one checks almost every box imaginable. If sovereign citizen bingo were a real thing, you'd probably fill the whole card before this case is over.

[00:00:53]See if you can keep count of all the classic arguments he throws out along the way. It's a long ride, so buckle up and let's get into it.

[00:01:01]>> So, the the motions that were filed by um Mr. Chavez um are a well they're not all labeled motions but the uh the filings that were filed uh were verified affidavit verified motion to dismiss with prejudice a notice of special appearance uh an affidavit um a fee waiver demand an affidavit of indig indigency um there was a lawful demand for continuence an affidavit of good cause an exhibit list motion to admit exhibits into evidence and a certificate of service. There was also a general memorandum of law um that was filed.

[00:01:50]Yes. And I see that I guess all of those were filed on October or August 14th.

[00:01:55]Um, obviously all the days ago, I guess I would just ask the defense to clarify what they're wanting to locate here today specifically. Um, sure.

[00:02:21]I think that would help us determine how to proceed.

[00:02:30]Uh there was also a supplemental affidavit of a constitutional violation.

[00:02:36]Um essentially challenging stop um which I think could be interpreted as a motion to suppress Okay. Um All right. So, several motions have been filed. Uh again, um we didn't determine how to proceed today. Um Mr. Chavez. Um uh I did also see a motion to continue uh in uh in these filings, but the way I interpreted that motion to continue was that um you were requesting that the court accept your motions because they were filed outside the 14-day deadline.

[00:03:20]>> It was if I may.

[00:03:22]>> Yes, you did.

[00:03:22]>> It was it was to cure. Uh I'm in the process of moving and a lot of personal things. I was trying to meet your um the required timeline that you gave me, you know, in good faith. Um that was why I requested that. Um and again, you know, um that was more or less the reason why I requested a continuence just to make sure that everything was filed. You had enough time to >> uh view them the material.

[00:03:51]>> All right. Well, I think I interpreted it corre correctly then. I would the motions were obviously accepted by the court. usually um the the remedy if uh if a party uh files motions late um especially when we're in the pre-trial process, a trial has not been scheduled uh in this uh matter yet. Um so from a pre procedural standpoint, the remedy would be if for some reason if the prosecution needed more time to respond to that uh to those motions, um the the remedy would be continuing the motions hearing to allow more time for response from the other side. Um so that's really um with respect to the late filing the motions are certainly accepted but that's why I asked today whether the prosecution was prepared to go forward uh to address those motions today. I think if we can um so my understanding I guess at the moment is this is essentially a reasonable suspicion suppression probable cause discretion and then a jurisdictional motion hearing >> I believe so >> the jurisdiction needs to be established before any proceeding any further that's foundational >> do you see where you're sitting right now that alone should tell you that personal jurisdiction has already been established as for subject matter jurisdiction that will be confirmed once the officer testifies about when and where the traffic stop took place.

[00:05:12]>> For the record, I appear specially, not generally, my presence is under duress, coercion, and threat of arrest if I fail to appear. This is not a voluntary submission to jurisdiction. I reserve all rights. I make no waiverss, and I demand the court prove jurisdiction on the record before proceeding any further. Um, you came in here and said the court is the people versus Ryan Chavez. Uh the state and the people are a fictional entity. They cannot be cross-examined. They cannot testify.

[00:05:41]They cannot take an oath. Um so I demand that a living man or woman take the stand and that an injured party is presented. Otherwise, this case needs to be dismissed with prejudice.

[00:05:54]>> Do the people intend to call a witness this morning?

[00:05:57]>> I was going to call the officer who um pulled him over on the day of the offense.

[00:06:00]>> Is the officer the injured party? Uh, an injured party is not required, Mr. Chavez.

[00:06:06]>> It absolutely is injur required under Terry versus Ohio and Delaware versus Prow. Uh, requires articul suspicion of a crime. Uh, muddy plate um is not probable cause and um obstruction further needs to meet Colorado Revised Statute 181041A.

[00:06:26]Requires physical interference and courier's own affidavit. Admits no active obstruction ever occurred.

[00:06:33]Your argument is noted.

[00:06:35]Um, it's rejected by the court.

[00:06:38]>> It's not an argument. I'm denying that argument statuto.

[00:06:40]>> You're making a record right now and I'm denying uh any assertion that you're making that an injured party, a specific injured party is required in this case.

[00:06:50]This is a statutory violation of the legislature of the state of Colorado.

[00:06:55]>> Constitutional protections and rights.

[00:06:57]>> Okay. Your your record has been made.

[00:07:00]It's it's a statutory fact under Colorado's own statutory law and I will provide that to you.

[00:07:11]Um 38121409 Colorado codifies federal law shall govern and supersede conflicting state provisions.

[00:07:25]Colorado statutes do not supersede or override constitutional rights, protections or federal law.

[00:07:35]Okay.

[00:07:38]So >> So how how does that impact these?

[00:07:40]>> So for the record and on the record you are denying the supremacy clause.

[00:07:47]>> What federal law are you invoking here?

[00:07:49]>> The supremacy clause. you are bound to to stand within the uh supremacy court.

[00:07:55]>> What I'm asking you, Mr. Chavez, how does that impact these proceedings?

[00:07:58]>> Well, until you prove jurisdiction, present an uh injured party, this case needs to be dismissed with prejudice.

[00:08:05]>> That's what we're here to do today.

[00:08:07]>> Well, you still need to prove jurisdiction before we proceed any further.

[00:08:11]>> You're exercising your right to due process right now by invoking a uh by filing motions and invoking a hearing on those motions, and that's what we're carrying out today. I will hear testimony and argument from the prosecution as well as you and I will make a ruling on jurisdiction uh and on the um uh the veracity of the stop whether there was reasonable suspicion of probable cause. Okay. Uh you are exercising your due process right now whether it's uh state due process uh federal due process uh that's that is the proceeding we're carrying out now.

[00:08:47]Correct.

[00:08:48]>> Okay. So, none of your rights are being violated.

[00:08:51]>> Not yet. They have already been violated by couriers. Stop.

[00:08:55]>> Well, that's what we're here. That's what we're here today to determine.

[00:08:58]>> Okay. You need to let these proceedings go forward.

[00:09:01]>> Well, you need to prove jurisdiction before we can proceed any further. You can't you can't just jump and go to one thing to the next thing.

[00:09:08]>> This court has jurisdiction over this proceeding.

[00:09:11]>> And and what proof are you going to provide me with? We're going to hear testimony so I can determine whether or not I have personal jurisdiction over you based on the officer's testimony.

[00:09:20]>> That's not how it works.

[00:09:21]>> Yes, it is.

[00:09:21]>> No, it's not. You >> Okay. Well, okay. We're going to go forward with these proceedings. If you want to appeal after we're done with these proceedings, you are welcome to.

[00:09:29]Okay.

[00:09:29]>> I reserve my rights under title 421 1983. They are reserved >> 1883 or excuse me title 182 2412 242 cuz at this point you are in direct violation of my rights >> without proving jurisdiction.

[00:09:45]>> What statute is that?

[00:09:47]>> I just provided them to you. Those are United States codes which again are >> federal codes.

[00:09:52]>> It doesn't they supersede state.

[00:09:54]>> What he does know is that federal laws generally apply to federal matters while state laws govern state level cases.

[00:10:01]Thanks to the 10th Amendment, states have the authority to create and enforce their own laws, which is exactly why state codes apply in cases like this one. Now, I'm going to play a short portion of the prosecution questioning the officer who pulled him over, and then we'll jump straight into the defendant's cross-examination, which quickly turns into an absolute train wreck.

[00:10:20]>> And did you speak with Officer Jennifer Cruzy of the Blue River Police Department about Mr. Chavez?

[00:10:26]>> I did.

[00:10:26]>> And what did she have to say about him?

[00:10:29]Well, when I was back in my vehicle reviewing his history in Summit County for traffic stops, I found that he had been stopped twice prior um in approximately the last year by officer Cruzie. Um one time was for speeding, the other time was for obstructed license plate, and I believe registration. Um she told me that he was uncooperative with her as well, refused to provide driver's license, registration, insurance. Um she ultimately ended up letting him go with warnings both times. She told me that she was after a lot of talking with him able to convince him to provide her with his she called it a sovereign citizen ID. I don't know what that is necessarily, but she said he provided that.

[00:11:08]>> Okay. What's the objection?

[00:11:10]>> That's prejuditial. You cannot use that term. I demand it be stricken.

[00:11:15]>> Uh what term?

[00:11:17]>> Sovereign citizen.

[00:11:18]>> Uh we are not in front of a jury. Um there's >> it's there's no prejudice >> proof. You cannot use it against me. I'm not a domestic terrorist.

[00:11:28]>> I'm not I'm not striking that um your objections overruled show that this court is refusing to abide by federal law. It is condemned by federal law.

[00:11:38]>> Yeah, you may begin your cross- examination.

[00:11:40]>> I invoked a hostile witness.

[00:11:42]>> Excuse me.

[00:11:42]>> I invoke hostile witness. They need to ask her leading questions. Uh >> you you're allowed to ask your leading questions on cross.

[00:11:48]>> Would you consider yourself an expert?

[00:11:51]>> Yes, I've been sworn in as an expert in traffic.

[00:11:54]Okay. And in your own affidavit, you admitted and even to me that uh during the the stop that you don't know every Colorado revised statute. Is that correct?

[00:12:03]>> Yes.

[00:12:04]>> Okay. So, it's safe to say that you're not an expert.

[00:12:07]>> Depends on your definition of an expert.

[00:12:09]>> Well, you just said you were an expert, but you just also in your sworn affidavit said you don't know every Colorado statute.

[00:12:16]>> Correct. I don't need to know every single statute, but if your definition of an expert is to know every statute, then no, I would not be. Well, the definition of an expert is that you are profine profound in whatever your profession is.

[00:12:32]You are a deputy. You just claim to be an expert. However, in your sworn affidavit, you said you don't know every Colorado statute.

[00:12:42]That pretty backwards, is it not?

[00:12:51]Again, depends on your definition of an expert.

[00:12:53]>> Not my definition. It's the standard definition of an expert.

[00:12:58]You just said you were an expert in your sworn affidavit. You said you don't know every Colorado statute. That would go against being an expert, which again would probably lead into that you're training people who don't know that either. Correct.

[00:13:15]>> No.

[00:13:17]>> And that's your opinion. Or is that a fact?

[00:13:21]I'm a little confused about the question. Opinion or fact of what?

[00:13:24]>> Was it your opinion that you're not an expert and that you don't need to know every Colorado statute even though you just said you're an expert?

[00:13:34]>> Can you rephrase the question so that way I can better understand it?

[00:13:37]>> Well, you said you were an expert. You sworn that you don't know every Colorado revised statute.

[00:13:42]>> Mhm.

[00:13:42]>> You are training people in the ways that you feel are correct. However, you just admitted you don't know every Colorado statute, but you also admitted that you're an expert.

[00:13:54]>> Would that not be um indecisive >> and the fact that you're not an expert, you don't know Colorado law.

[00:14:08]>> Again, I'll take you back to the definition of an expert. So if your definition of an expert is is somebody who knows every single law in CRS then no I am not an expert but per the courts I've been sworn in as an expert >> on traffic.

[00:14:22]>> What what evidence uh have you have been provided with that um from a third party testimony that I'm a domestic terrorist?

[00:14:34]Have you been provided any evidence of that?

[00:14:38]>> Domestic terrorist. I never use that word.

[00:14:40]>> Jason, do you know what sovereign citizen means?

[00:14:43]>> I know the general colloquial term.

[00:14:45]>> Do you know what an oxymoron?

[00:14:47]>> With the heaviest emphasis on the [ __ ] part.

[00:14:50]>> I don't understand your question.

[00:14:52]>> Do you know what an oxymoron is?

[00:14:54]>> No.

[00:14:56]>> Okay, I'll break it down as simple as I can for you. Two words that mean two different things. Sovereign means you're independent. Citizen means you are governed by somebody. You cannot use those words together. They are legally irrelevant.

[00:15:14]Okay. It's also defamation.

[00:15:17]And that's under Colorado law. Did you know that?

[00:15:23]>> No.

[00:15:25]>> So, have you been provided any evidence that I am a sovereign citizen or a domestic terrorist?

[00:15:33]Officer Jen Cruzie, who pulled you over for Blue River, um advised me that you had provided her with what she called a sovereign citizen ID. I was not there for that. That is what she told me.

[00:15:43]That's officer to officer communication and information. That is the only information that I have, the only background that I have on you. I don't know you outside of that.

[00:15:52]And so it's her word that a stateisssued Department of State issued passport is what she considers a sovereign citizen document.

[00:16:05]>> That is not how she described it. So you'd have to ask her.

[00:16:08]>> That's that's what you just said. You just said that she was presented a sovereign citizen, what she considered a sovereign citizen ID.

[00:16:18]So, doesn't that go against what you just said?

[00:16:22]>> No, that's what she told me.

[00:16:25]>> And and what proof does she have?

[00:16:27]>> You'd have to ask her.

[00:16:29]>> So, again, this is third party hearsay testimony with no factual evidence.

[00:16:37]Correct.

[00:16:38]>> No, this is what officer Cruzie told me.

[00:16:41]So, you'd have to ask.

[00:16:42]>> That's hearsay. You know, do you know what hearsay is?

[00:16:44]>> It's officer to officer communication and information. It's in good faith. It does matter.

[00:16:50]>> Objection, your honor. Clearly, it's the fellow officer rule and it's not hearsay for the purposes of this motion's hearing.

[00:16:54]>> While repeating something said by a person who isn't present to testify would normally be considered hearsay, there are certain exceptions, including communication between law enforcement officers in specific circumstances. So once again, that argument doesn't exactly hold up.

[00:17:10]>> That's your dash cam, correct?

[00:17:12]>> I believe so.

[00:17:13]>> Okay. So again, for the record, this was Do you want me to leave this right there?

[00:17:18]>> Let me make sure I'm looking at the same.

[00:17:22]>> You're welcome to leave it up there for now.

[00:17:24]>> I don't think so.

[00:17:26]>> So, for the record, I just presented uh I believe it was exhibit A. Forgive me.

[00:17:33]It was >> okay. Thank you.

[00:17:35]um dash cam photo of of deputy carriers um of my truck from deputy carriers uh cruiser on I believe it's 614 um did you make any attempt to clear my license plate?

[00:17:55]>> I did. I went behind and I wiped some of the dust off but I was still unable to see underneath it.

[00:18:00]>> Okay. And so you just testified that it was a smoke covered license plate and now you just said that you attempted to wipe dust or mud off of it. Correct?

[00:18:11]>> Yes.

[00:18:12]>> Okay. Now in that photo there's given the very poor in my opinion quality for 2025 when phones have 8K capabilities. Why your dash cam doesn't have that type of capability is unbeknownst to me. But clearly that truck is covered in mud. Are you familiar with the term mud season in this county?

[00:18:38]>> I would object to this line of questioning as it's irrelevant. The applicable statute 42 32022B just says that a person shall not operate a motor vehicle with an affixed device or substance that causes all or portion of the license plate to be unreadable by a system used to automatically identify a motor vehicle.

[00:18:57]Such a device includes without limitation a cover that distorts angular visibility, alters the color of plate, or is smoked, tinted, scratched, or dirty so as to impair the legibility of the license plate. Whether it's mud, dirt, or dust, it all qualifies under the same statute. So, I don't believe that this line of questioning is relevant in at all. Uh in that same statute, it does clarify that mud during specific times of the year, just like winter when your car is covered in snow, um it just advises that at the quickest time to uh clear it when when possible.

[00:19:36][sighs] Uh well, Mr. Martinez, you're right. Um that is the statute that's applicable here. I do think that this questioning is uh still relevant. Uh so I'm going to allow Mr. Chavez to um uh explore this a little bit more but um once the point's been made I'll ask him to move on. Uh so that objections over >> Go ahead Mr. Chavez.

[00:20:04]>> Thank you. [cough and clears throat] >> Um other than what you testified as my demeanor.

[00:20:10]>> Oh thanks. Um, in in any other way did I um obstruct you physically from doing your job >> physically? No.

[00:20:22]>> Okay. Are you aware that under Colorado Revised Statute 188104 uh and Colorado law requires uh physical interference and that even in your own affidavit you clearly said none none of that existed >> by not providing me with driver's license registration or insurance that is interference.

[00:20:41]>> Um under Colorado law it's not because you never articulated a crime. You never articulated probable cause.

[00:20:51]>> Third question. Make sure that's a question.

[00:20:53]>> Um, did you ever identify probable cause?

[00:20:58]>> Yes. And it was signed off on by the DA and the judge.

[00:21:01]>> And what what crime did I commit?

[00:21:03]>> Obstruction. And not providing me with a valid driver's license, uh, not providing me with insurance, expired registration, and obstructed license plates.

[00:21:12]>> And do you is the body cam footage here uh to to prove that you ever asked me those questions?

[00:21:18]>> I have it on my computer. I'm not sure if um Mr. Martinez has it. I could also definitely pull it up on my computer if need be.

[00:21:27]>> I move to strike that.

[00:21:32]>> Um over what? I I don't need to strike it.

[00:21:36]I understand that you're objecting to that answer.

[00:21:41]>> Uh did you take an oath when you became a deputy?

[00:21:45]>> Yes.

[00:21:46]>> What does that oath entail?

[00:21:49]uh that was four and a half years ago.

[00:21:50]It's not consistent across all departments, so it's not something that's set. So, honestly, I do not remember the exact verbiage or anything of that, but I know it does include >> that verbiage, but >> I asked for what is your what is what is your oath? What what do you oath do?

[00:22:04]What do you what do you uh sworn to uphold?

[00:22:07]>> It does include upholding the constitution.

[00:22:09]>> Okay. And are you aware that um under the constitution uh any laws repugnant of the constitution are null and void?

[00:22:23]>> Am I aware that laws that are contradictory to the constitution?

[00:22:27]>> Repugnant is the word that I use. Do you know what repugnant means?

[00:22:30]>> I do not.

[00:22:31]>> Repugnant means that it's not withstanding. It means that it's not enforcable. It means that it's null. It means that it's void. It's uninforceable.

[00:22:42]>> Sure. Sometimes states >> No, no, it's not sometimes. It's Do you know what the supremacy clauses?

[00:22:48][clears throat] >> The Constitution overrules state laws.

[00:22:54]>> Do you know uh what article and section that's in?

[00:22:57]>> No.

[00:22:59]Your honor, again, I would object to relevance. Um if he's challenging the validity of the validity of the law, that's a different venue than here. Uh obviously there are other constitutional considerations than just whether or not a right exists. Such things are guaranteed basis review on the validity of laws that do potentially infringe on any constitutional rights.

[00:23:24]Uh I I would agree that the question with respect to deputy uh Turer's uh testimony um [clears throat] uh so I will sustain that objection and ask Mr. Chavez to move on. It's certainly something that I [clears throat] can argue in his own uh arguments but it's not relevant with respect to deputy courier. Okay. Any more questions for Mr. Deputy Courier?

[00:23:49]Mr. Chavez.

[00:23:50]>> Uh yes.

[00:23:52]Uh are you aware that using the defamatory label of sovereign citizen without evidence uh it's is a uh Brady Gigglio violation requiring impeachment disclosure and [clears throat] suppression objection this is has been asked and answered the court has addressed this issue and that if a jury was present then it would be prejuditial and that's what the aim of that law is supposed to represent not for the purposes of this motion. hearing today. Further, I would note that she is not the one claiming he's a sovereign citizen. She was only citing a statement from another officer.

[00:24:30]>> She put it in a sworn affidavit that was used for an a false arrest of warrant.

[00:24:41]And again, your honor, quite frankly, the fact that he is or is not a sovereign citizen is not relevant to whether or not there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the criminal offenses that occurred on June 14th of 2025.

[00:24:54]>> Uh, Mr. Chavez, what was the question again?

[00:24:58]>> I I asked her if she was aware that using a defamatory label in a sworn affidavit uh without evidence is a Brady Gigglio uh violation requiring impeachment.

[00:25:10]Okay. Um, do you think it's asking Deputy Curry to make a legal conclusion on that issue? I think I don't think this question has been asked but I think the only question that would be relevant with respect to uh the mention of the term sovereign citizen would be whether or not she relied upon the use of that term and determining whether there was probable cause for the arrest in these circumstances.

[00:25:42]And that's about all that's relevant.

[00:25:45]Excuse me.

[00:25:50]How long did you uh keep me uh detain me on 614 >> rough estimate? Again, I believe approximately 30 minutes.

[00:26:04]And you're aware that that's well above the uh standard uh time limit of about 15 minutes without probable cause or uh reasonable articul suspicion.

[00:26:17]>> There is no standard time limit. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the stop.

[00:26:21]>> That directly contradicts a Terry stop.

[00:26:24]>> Nope.

[00:26:25]>> It it does.

[00:26:27]>> No, it doesn't. A Terry stop isn't measured by a stopwatch. It's measured by reasonleness. While the Supreme Court ruled in the Rodriguez versus United States that officers can't unnecessarily extend a traffic stop, that protection doesn't apply when the delay is caused by your own actions, like refusing to provide identification or interfering with the investigation. Officers are allowed the time reasonably necessary to complete the purpose of the stop. And if your non-compliance drags things out, that delay falls on you, not them. Uh are you aware that uh the courts operate under uh full disclosure and fiduciary duty?

[00:27:05]>> That is not my realm of expertise. I wouldn't know about that.

[00:27:08]>> Okay. Um are you aware of what's uh commonly referred to as the Chris system or the court registry investment system?

[00:27:16]>> No. And again, that's not my realm.

[00:27:19]>> Are you uh aware of uh the term bond fraud?

[00:27:25]>> No. You don't know what fraud is or what a bond is?

[00:27:28]>> Fraud. I don't know about bond fraud.

[00:27:30]That's again not something that I've dealt with or my area.

[00:27:33]>> Was there uh any injured party or property damage during this uh case or during this stop? Excuse me.

[00:27:40]>> No property damage as far as injured party. I mean, it's the people Colorado >> as a people is a is is a fiction. It can't be an injured party. You aware of that?

[00:27:53]>> No.

[00:27:55]No, you're not aware of that or >> No.

[00:27:58]>> Are you aware of the uh Sixth Amendment right to confront the injured party?

[00:28:03]>> No.

[00:28:04]>> Okay. So, are you aware that under the Sixth Amendment, every man, living man or woman has the right to confront that injured party and that injured party must be a living man or woman.

[00:28:17]>> That would fall again under the realm of the courts. Um that's not something that law enforcement, me as >> a sixth amendment, right? something that me as a street cop would typically deal with.

[00:28:26]>> Well, you're a deputy.

[00:28:28]>> Deputies are sworn to uphold the constitution. Sixth amendment is part of the constitution. Is that correct?

[00:28:33]>> Yes.

[00:28:35]>> All right, Miss Courier. Going back to exhibit A, um, which was admitted by the defense. Can you see any numbers on that license plate on the back?

[00:28:44]>> No.

[00:28:46]>> Objection.

[00:28:48]It was established that the quality is is pretty poor and it's covered in mud.

[00:28:54]She even admitted she tried to dust it off and it's not a smoke plate cover.

[00:29:01]Uh the record went out that you object to her answer, but there's um I don't hear an actual objection to the question and I think the question is proper. So, [snorts] >> would you say your view of that license plate was obstructed >> my view of the license plate? Yes, the I did wipe the dust off and was able to see the plastic without the dust in the area that I was able to wipe off and I still was not able to see a plate underneath.

[00:29:30]>> Despite wiping it, you still could not see anything.

[00:29:32]>> Yes.

[00:29:33]>> Okay. [sighs and gasps] Was Mr. Chavez being referred to as a sovereign citizen any sort of factor in your determination of probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

[00:29:45]>> No.

[00:29:46]>> That was established independent of that fact?

[00:29:49]>> Yes.

[00:29:50]>> And you couldn't see that license plate the moment you saw him pass you on Highway 9. Correct.

[00:29:55]>> Correct.

[00:29:56]>> And once again, is that individual that you pulled over, Ryan Chavez, here in the courtroom today?

[00:30:01]>> Yes.

[00:30:02]>> No further question, sir.

[00:30:04]>> I do have one more question if I may. Uh yes, Mr. Chavez, >> are you aware uh how long have you lived in Summit County?

[00:30:12]>> Since I started working here about March of 21.

[00:30:15]>> So you're aware of the term mud season, correct?

[00:30:18]>> Okay. What does that mean?

[00:30:20]>> Uh depends on after the ski slopes close. Um I don't remember when the ski slopes close this year and it's kind of determining on the people and whoever it is on when that actually ends. So it's a very vague term. Um but typically again when the slopes close to when summertime starts to pick up.

[00:30:37]>> Okay. And you would agree that there's in the county it's considered two mud seasons.

[00:30:43]>> Two mud seasons. Yeah.

[00:30:45]>> That's a local thing where there's two then I'm not aware of it.

[00:30:48]>> Do you not consider yourself a local?

[00:30:51]>> No. I've only been here for 4 years. So I think most locals would not consider me a local either.

[00:30:55]>> Okay. So you're not aware that there is two run seasons. In fact, >> no. I guess without being too specific, do you do you live on a rural road or a paved road?

[00:31:08]>> Rule.

[00:31:09]>> Okay. And you're aware that um during mud season specifically uh puddles form, mud forms, dust accumulates on specifically on rural dirt roads.

[00:31:21]>> Yes.

[00:31:22]>> And it's uncontrollable >> for to accumulate. Yes. What was completely under your control, though, was cleaning that license plate before taking your oversized land yacht out for a drive, especially for someone showing up today as the courtroom's self-declared mud season specialist.

[00:31:38]Anyway, with that disastrous cross-examination officially in the rear view, it's time to move on to the stack of motions he somehow thought were a good idea to file.

[00:31:46]>> Um, so Mr. Chavez, um, at this time you're welcome to provide your own testimony if you feel is necessary.

[00:31:53]Otherwise, typically uh in a motions hearing uh like this um this would be the the time that uh we allow argument from either side. So, you could certainly state your position with respect to the motions that you filed.

[00:32:06]Um at this time, would do you wish to provide any testimony under oath?

[00:32:10][clears throat] >> Um yeah, I can.

[00:32:13]>> Okay. Um, so that would be limited to uh essentially uh your testimony testimony related to the stop itself. Okay. Um, and then we'll allow for some argument.

[00:32:26]Okay. Um, so before you testify, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[00:32:36]>> I do. Thank you.

[00:32:39]Uh, for the record, uh, my name is Ryan Chavez. Uh, I'm here under special appearance. I do not wave any rights.

[00:32:46]Again, my presence is under duress, coercion, and threat of arrest if I fail to appear. This is not a voluntary submission to jurisdiction. I reserve all rights and make no waiverss. And it is uh well established in law that federal law and supremacy clause supersede any of the state statutes and laws that conflict with it. During the stop on uh June 14th, 2025, uh I was not speeding, which clearly she said I wasn't doing. I was obeying the traffic laws. Um I live on a extremely dusty and dirty road. Um my plate cover is not smoke tinted. It is clear. Uh, my truck is black. My plate is black. Um, and I truly didn't know that it was that caked in mud. Uh, when she pulled me over, um, I knew my truck was dirty, but I did not have any realization that it was that dirty in the back. And again, this is during mud season. Um, I get up at 5:30 in the morning. I don't walk around my truck to check stuff. I just get up and go to work. When I was approached by Deputy Courier, I specifically asked her what what was the emergency. She specifically said, "Your truck is is too muddy. I can't see your plate." I just responded said, "Well, I live on a dirt road. Uh it's mud season." She then accused me of not having a front plate. She walked in front of my truck, looking right at the front plate. I had to estimate maybe between 5 to 10 feet in front of my truck and completely lied. Said I didn't have a front plate. I have a front and back plate. I I believe I asked her if I uh was traveling if if I was traveling in any type of commercial capacity or working commerce. Did I have a for example, did I have an an Uber light or a lift light? She just proceeded to escalate. I asked for a supervisor. I was denied that uh outright. Instead of calling a supervisor, she called backup, which proceeded to be two more uh Summit County Sheriffs and four uh police officers, two from Breck, two from uh Frisco, which both of those are out of their jurisdiction, have no standing being there, and and them as deputies supersede any local law enforcement. Um clearly was a sign of intimidation. I'm sure that double-digit arithmetic is a sign of intimidation for your limited cognitive capacity.

[00:35:31]>> I felt completely unsafe. These people are armed. Um, and by her own in minutes, she doesn't know the laws or all the laws. Um, this went on for 45 minutes. At no point did I threaten her. [clears throat] Uh, I never threatened her with violence. I never yelled at her. Um, I never obstructed her. And again, according to the law, under Colorado law, uh, obstruction is a physical interference of her duty. And just because I refused to identify myself without probable cause or reasonable suspic suspicion, articulous suspicion, which she could not provide me with, I'm not required to help her with her investigation or identify myself. I have broken no laws.

[00:36:23]A a dirty plate is not a a dirty plate or a dirty plate truck is not a purposeful act to conceal anything. I I didn't obstruct her in any way. I sat in my car uh asked for a supervisor. I was denied. Again, this went on for 45 minutes. She completely failed to articulate any type of probable cause, reasonable suspicion. And she said she attempted to wipe off my plate, which I didn't see if she did that or not. But I do have a front, rear, and inside cameras in my truck. I'm I wasn't operating in a commercial capacity. I have a right to travel, a constitutional right to travel on a private road from point A to point B. Uh cannot be infringed upon. You absolutely have the constitutional right to sit in a jail cell convincing yourself that commercial licensing laws and the UCCC somehow apply to everyday driving inside the United States. Even though that argument falls apart the second actual law enters the room. But now that he's decided to testify on his own behalf, it's finally time for an actual attorney to start pulling this whole act apart piece by piece. And trust me, pay close attention to how difficult he's about to be in court because it paints a pretty clear picture of how exhausting that traffic stop probably was for the officer dealing with him.

[00:37:44]>> Martinez, do you have any questions?

[00:37:46]>> Yes. Uh, would you like me to just ask it like this? I >> I think you can. Okay, that's fine.

[00:37:52]>> So, uh, in your testimony just now, you admitted that your license plate was caked with mud. Correct.

[00:37:57]>> My whole truck was is what I said.

[00:37:59]>> Okay. [clears throat] And would that include your license plate? Well, I mean, if it's my whole truck, then Yeah.

[00:38:04]>> So, it would include your license plate.

[00:38:06]>> That would be my whole truck.

[00:38:08]>> Well, the answer is yes.

[00:38:10]>> Yeah.

[00:38:10]>> Okay.

[00:38:14]And that same statute that you could keep citing, you realize that the word dirty is also used as part of that violation for obstructed license plate. Correct. Well, as I said before, it's very specific about the word dirty or mudcovered or obstructed, and that includes snow. Um, and it's >> and you just used the word or, correct?

[00:38:38]>> So, that means it could be either one.

[00:38:40]>> Well, do we get snow in August?

[00:38:43]>> But what I'm saying is it could be either one, correct? By using the word or.

[00:38:47]>> Well, it could it could be.

[00:38:49]>> The answer yes or no.

[00:38:50]>> No. Well, no, cuz what you're doing is is you're using legal to try to trick me. Or does not mean one?

[00:38:55]>> What are we speaking? Are we speaking English? Are we speaking?

[00:38:58]>> We're speaking English.

[00:38:59]>> Okay.

[00:38:59]>> So, does ore mean both or does it not?

[00:39:03]>> Clarify.

[00:39:04]>> When it says dirty or smoked, does that mean that it could be both?

[00:39:10]>> Yes or no?

[00:39:11]>> No.

[00:39:13]Because if my plate cover is clear, which it is.

[00:39:19]>> Why did you not provide your insurance?

[00:39:22]Well, they she ran my plate. All that stuff comes up.

[00:39:26]>> So, you never gave her your insurance.

[00:39:28]>> She didn't ask me to.

[00:39:29]>> She did ask you to.

[00:39:30]>> That's what she said she did. But you haven't proven that. Where's the body cam footage? Cuz I don't remember her telling me that.

[00:39:36]>> Okay. But you never provided her with your insurance.

[00:39:38]>> I don't need to. I don't need to provideation.

[00:39:41]I don't need to provide so she can articulate reasonable suspicion.

[00:39:45]>> Yes or no? Did you provide her insurance?

[00:39:47]>> I don't need to. Well, >> you did not. I don't need to.

[00:39:51]>> But you did not.

[00:39:52]>> I do not need to.

[00:39:55]>> Um, did you ever get out of your car during this interaction?

[00:39:58]>> No, I just testified to that.

[00:40:00]>> Okay. So, how do you know that she didn't try to wipe the backside of your car?

[00:40:04]>> Well, if you were listening, I said that's what she said, but I don't know if she actually did that.

[00:40:12]But she testified to it just like she swore an affidavit, which is under the penalty of perjury, just like when she got up there. So, if she didn't do it, then she lied just like she did in her sworn affidavit.

[00:40:22]>> Why was your registration expired?

[00:40:24]>> I don't travel in commerce.

[00:40:26]>> Were you driving on a road that day in Colorado that's paid for by the state of Colorado?

[00:40:31]>> I travel in in private. It's a right to travel. That's also protected under the Constitution, which you should know.

[00:40:38]>> Yes or no? Were you traveling on a road paid for by the state of Colorado?

[00:40:41]>> What was that?

[00:40:42]>> Were you traveling on a highway in the state of Colorado that the words that you just used? Were you traveling on a road?

[00:40:49]>> Traveling >> on a road in call.

[00:40:51]>> Traveling.

[00:40:52]>> Correct.

[00:40:54]>> Objection. Nonresponsive.

[00:40:56]>> I was going to respond. I asked him to clarify. He didn't.

[00:41:00]>> Okay. Um I will ask you to answer the question.

[00:41:05]Mr. Martinez, could you could you restate the question?

[00:41:10]>> Were you driving on a road in Colorado?

[00:41:12]I was trapped.

[00:41:13]>> I kind of wish the prosecutor had asked whether he was traveling by Nikes or in a gas powered motor vehicle. Not that it would have changed anything by dodging the question. He pretty much answered it himself. Now it's time for his closing arguments.

[00:41:28]>> Studies cannot override the Constitution. Article 6, clause two of the supremacy clause makes clear any statute repugnant of the Constitution is void. Jion requires lawful cause, injured party, and sworn testimony. and very few of those are present. There's no injured party. There's no property damage. Under CRS 188104, a person commits obstruction only if they knowingly obstruct impair hinder the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting on the color of his official authority. uh in Dempsey versus uh the people Colorado Supreme Court held that verbal challenges, passive resistance or refusal to provide identification without a predicated crime do not satisfy this statute. At no point did I hinder uh her from doing her job. Never left my vehicle. Never physically stopped her from doing her job. She was clearly able to identify me from my plates um without any type of reasonable particular suspicion or probable cause. She did threaten me and this court has um still yet to provide um a living man or woman uh of the injured party. The state or the people cannot be the injured party. Um this is a guarantee by the sixth amendment right.

[00:42:53]Further, Terry versus Ohio and Delaware versus Prrowse, the Supreme Court ruled that stops must be based on articulus or criminal activity.

[00:43:04]A dirty plate or hard to see plates absent any conduct, criminal conduct doesn't meet this standard.

[00:43:11]Uh Lynch versus Romeo. Um the 10th Circuit confirmed that uh verbal criticism or passive conduct is not obstruction. The conduct here was a lawful assertion of my rights.

[00:43:25]Colorado's own law requires that obstruction involve an act of physical interference with law enforcement duties as held in Colorado's own appeals court, People versus Brandon, 2001.

[00:43:39]Verbal challenges or do not constitute obstruction unless the conduct actually prevents an officer from performing her lawful duty. Here she was able to identify me. She saw my front plate. Um, she identified me and all of that insurance registration, all of that comes up. When it comes to registration, I do not travel in a commercial capacity. Colorado's own DMV guidelines state that a driver or driving on roadways and state are specifically for commiss commercial uses, people that are being paid to transport somebody or transport goods and services. I don't do either of those. I I travel the roads privately. It is my right under the constitution to travel on the roads privately from point A to point B.

[00:44:32]courier's own affidavit is it's absolutely defamatory. It's um it it's absolutely perjury.

[00:44:41]There is no evidence, no proof that I have ever claimed to be a sovereign citizen.

[00:44:48]Under the Department of Justice and the FBI, to call somebody a sovereign citizen, you have labeled them a domestic terrorist. And Colorado's own law condemns that usage, especially in a court like this one right here. It is biased. It's absolutely prejuditial.

[00:45:08]There is no evidence of it. I am well aware of my constitutional rights and guarantees.

[00:45:14]I assert them properly.

[00:45:17]I do not live my life and travel on the roads in a illegal manner.

[00:45:27]I I respect the constitution of this state which is bound to the constitution of the United States and the supremacy clause.

[00:45:39]Federal law and supreme court rulings supersede this.

[00:45:43]I am well aware of the bonds that are created um for each court case and that are inherently a direct conflict of interest. This is proven by the court registry investment system.

[00:45:58]Um it constitutes double recovery and bond fraud under 18 uh USC872.

[00:46:06]Uh, I respectfully demand um full disclosure, QIP numbers, registration records, GAP accounting, receivable and payables, uh, proof of settlement and payments. I reserve all of my rights to um, exercise them and if I need to place this in the hands of the federal United States District Court, uh, pull both of your bonds and sue you both in your both private and public capacity, I will do that. So, let the record show uh I have reserved my rights to do that. I have full intentions to do that. This case is completely predicated on a false um perjury affidavit. Um at no point did I obstruct Courier from doing her job.

[00:46:53]Never physically stopped her from doing her job. She identified me. Um she never articulated reasonable suspicion of a crime. never uh articulated probable cause. I wasn't speeding, wasn't breaking any laws. I travel in private. I do not travel in commerce.

[00:47:12]>> I told you he was going to use every argument in the Soulset handbook of shame, but now it's time for the judge to make his ruling and shut down every one of his arguments. Uh well, I um am prepared to uh rule on a few of the issues and I may reserve u my ruling for uh a written ruling on a few of the issues that we addressed today. Uh first with respect to uh jurisdiction.

[00:47:40]Um excuse me.

[00:47:46]Um, so jurisdiction. In order for a criminal or traffic case to be prosecuted and a judgment to be legally imposed, the trial court must have jurisdiction of the sub subject matter.

[00:47:57]Essentially, jurisdiction over the offense and jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

[00:48:02]Um and in with respect to the subject matter jurisdiction um CRS18-1-201 uh provides that a person is subject to prosecution in the state for an offense which he commits by his own conduct or that of another for which he is illegally legally accountable if the conduct constitutes an offense and is committed either wholly or partly within the state.

[00:48:31]>> [snorts] >> Um and the allegations in this uh case are that Mr. Chavez's actions occurred in Summit County, Colorado.

[00:48:39]Um therefore um uh by statute and I understand that um Mr. Chavez challenges the Colorado via statutes or the applicability of those uh statutes, but they are applicable to this case and they do confer um subject matter jurisdiction under these proceedings.

[00:48:59]>> [clears throat] >> So I do find that this court has subject matter jurisdiction uh over the uh charges alleged in this case which are obstructing a peace officer um the obstructed smoke device operating a vehicle with an expired license plate and uh no proof of insurance upon request.

[00:49:23]And with respect to uh personal jurisdiction, the physical presence of the defendant in court confers jurisdiction over the person and the courts may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a criminal defendant in a number of ways.

[00:49:35][clears throat] Usually jurisdiction over the person is acquired when a person is arrested or otherwise taken into custody by law enforcement authorities and charged with an offense.

[00:49:42]Jurisdiction over the defendant is also acquired through the defendant's appear appearance in court whether voluntary in response to a summon or otherwise. Um, so I understand that Mr. uh Chavez uh objects uh to the voluntariness of his appearance in court. Uh but that is actually uh irrelevant with respect to personal jurisdiction. Uh I do find that uh this court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Chavez uh with respect to these proceedings.

[00:50:10]Um and regarding uh the reasonable suspicion for the stop, um Deputy Courier uh did testify that on June 14, 2025, she was on patrol on Highway 9 near mile marker 92 and observed um a m a vehicle that ultimately was determined to be Mr. Chavez's in which the license plate was obstructed.

[00:50:35]Um and upon contact with uh with that vehicle um and upon determining the license plate number uh was able to determine that the um [snorts] registration was not valid and inquired with Mr. Chavez um regarding proof of insurance. The court does find that um Deputy Courier has provided a reasonable articulate articulable suspicion uh that a traffic offense had been committed that did justify an investigatory stop.

[00:51:07]Now, I don't think the um the inquiry ends there. Uh the investigatory stop does need to be uh reasonable for the purposes of the stop and I understand that the stop um lasted approximately 45 minutes or so. I think based on u Mr. Chavez's testimony um but uh the initial stop was um because the license plate was uh obstructed in some way and Deputy Courier uh was justified in performing an investigatory stop uh to inquire further um regarding uh the license plate and um she was justified in requesting identifying information from Mr. Chavez.

[00:51:50][snorts] Um the statute 42-3-202 in subsection 2B does state that a person shall not operate a motor vehicle with an affixed device or a substance that causes all or a portion of a license plate to be unreadable by a system used to automatically identify a motor vehicle. Such a device includes without limitation a cover that distorts angular visibility, alters the color of the plate, or smoked tenant, scratched or dirty so as to impair the legibility of the license plate. Um, and so I would note that I I understand Mr. Chavez's testimony that it was mud season, that his car was that his car was dirty. I think it is clear from the exhibit that he introduced as exhibit A that his his and that there was dirt covering the license plate. [sighs and gasps] Um there was conflicting evidence or testimony with respect to whether or not um Deputy Accurer um was able to uh clean off all the dirt and see through uh the license plate. It's it's unclear to me whether you know how many layers of dirt might have been on there. Um obviously during mud season, especially if Mr. Chavez lives on a dirt road, there could be several layers of dirt. It might take some time to actually get all that dirt off of there.

[00:53:04]Um, but [clears throat] with respect to the reasonable suspicion, um, officer Deputy Courier had reasonable suspicion to, uh, to perform an investig investigator investigatory stop. Um, and I do think exhibit A actually confirms that her stop was justified.

[00:53:23]Um and um ultimately she was justified in uh requesting uh information uh from uh Mr. Chavez. Uh he did not provide insur proof of insurance upon request based on Deputy Curry's testimony and uh she was able to determine that the license plates were expired. Um so I do think that there's uh reasonable suspicion and probable cause uh that has been established with respect to um the three traffic infractions. Um and uh so meaning um 42-3-202 and 42-3-114 and 42-4-149.

[00:54:06]Um the question is whether the remaining question for me and I I think I'm going to take this issue under under advisement and issue a written order um is whether or not Mr. Chavez obstructed by failing to provide that information. And clearly if he failed to provide the proof of insurance he can be charged with failing to provide proof of insurance. Um the question that remains for the court is whether or not it's truly obstruction uh under 18-8-4104 um to not provide uh additional information uh once the officer has um uh has determined the identity of the um of the driver [clears throat] uh and the license plate number for the vehicle. [sighs and gasps] Uh, and that's something that I um I need to review some case law. [snorts] Um, I do understand Mr. Chavez um cited Dempsey um v people and that's in 117 P3 800.

[00:55:06]>> Excuse me. [clears throat] Sorry.

[00:55:08]Um and uh that um [snorts] that case states the obstruction statute contains the essential ele elements that that the defendant knowingly obstructed the enforcement of the penal law by an officer acting under color of official uh authority.

[00:55:28]Term enforcement in the statute includes those activities which a peace officer is under a duty to perform in order to give effect to the penal law. An officer is authorized to stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing has committed or is about to commit a crime, to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions.

[00:55:48]We have held that to justify such a limited intrusion, a police officer must have an articulable and uh specific basis in fact for suspecting that criminal activity has occurred or is about to take place. Thus, the officer's command must be attached to performance of an official function such as an investigator investigatory stop that is justifi justified by articulable basis and fact.

[00:56:10][clears throat] In that case, the evidence at trial proved that Dempsey refused to cooperate with the officer in several ways.

[00:56:18]Dempsey refused to provide his identification for the officers to write him a summon. Dempsey stated repeatedly in instead that he needed to speak to with his lawyer. And three, and Dempsey walked away, placing its hands in his pockets. And four, he struggled with the officers after they had grabbed his arms for their own safety, still refusing to cooperate with their attempts to issue him a summon. That case isn't directly um uh on point. The facts alleged here are uh somewhat different, and that's why I think I need to engage a little bit further on whether u when Mr. Chavez was essentially remained in seated in his car and refused to provide that information. Uh whether or not that actually rises to the level of of obstruction under that specific statute. Um so again, I'm going to have to take that issue under advisement. What I'm going to do, Mr. Chavez, is set this case for a status uh hearing uh or status conference um about 4 weeks out. I will issue my order as soon as I can get it to you. Um, and then we'll determine how to proceed if you uh at that time. Um, after I've made my uh uh ruling on that issue, you'll obviously be free to enter a not guilty plea at that time. We can schedule the case for trial if necessary or we can proceed as you wish. Um, [clears throat] but so I'm going to set a uh set a status conference uh so I can get that ruling out.

[00:57:41]>> May I make a request, John?

[00:57:43]>> Yes, sir.

[00:57:43]>> Could I uh appear virtually? I have to I'm going to be traveling in the next several months.

[00:57:49]>> Yeah. And I think we've um uh discussed that previously. I'm okay with the virtual appearance.

[00:57:54]>> I appreciate All right. So, the judge has essentially shut down every single one of his motions while also leaving the door open to deny even more in writing. But before we wrap this up, I've got one last clip to show you.

[00:58:06]>> That didn't work for you, Mr. Chavez.

[00:58:09]I I'm going to be obviously completely honest here. Um, I am starting a new job. Um, it does require a lot of travel. As I just said, >> you better hope you got both a commercial driver's license and a state driver's license. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite. And that's the end of the video. If you are keeping count, I'd love to know how many sovereign citizen arguments you spotted. When this case eventually goes to a jury trial, I'll definitely bring it back to you. As Oh, if you enjoyed the video, hit the like button. If you didn't, hit dislike. But don't forget to drop a comment below and subscribe with notifications on so you don't miss any of my content.