Sovereign Citizen Tries “Living Woman” Claim — Judge DISMANTLES Case

Añadido: 2026-06-02

[00:00:04][music] [music] >> Lynn Matallana Hello, ma'am.

[00:00:29]>> Hello.

[00:00:29]>> Can I have you please state your name and date of birth for the record?

[00:00:33]>> Uh first of all, I want to make note that >> Hold on. What's your name and your date of birth?

[00:00:38]>> I am a living alive person here by special appearance.

[00:00:43]>> it at the end. Go ahead. I This happens to me all the time. Just have a seat.

[00:00:47]>> Wait. So, you have a Wait.

[00:00:49]>> Get ready for a courtroom showdown that goes off the rails almost from the very beginning. In today's case, a woman appears in court convinced that traffic laws, vehicle registration rules, and insurance requirements don't apply to her. Instead of focusing on the actual tickets she received, she challenges the court's authority and starts making arguments often associated with the sovereign citizen movement. As the hearing unfolds, she talks about being a living breathing woman, questions her legal status, and raises several claims that courts across the country have rejected many times before. What makes this case so interesting is the judge's approach. He stays calm, patient, and professional the entire time. Rather than arguing with her, he keeps bringing the discussion back to one simple issue.

[00:01:35]Is there any evidence that addresses the traffic violations? The judge gives her several chances to present information that can help her case. But instead of discussing the citations themselves, she continues returning to arguments that have little to do with the charges in front of the court. It's a perfect example of how courts separate evidence from personal beliefs. Things become even more surprising when frustration starts to build and before the judge can finish explaining his decision, she gets up and leaves the courtroom. Was she standing by her beliefs or did walking out only make her situation worse? Stay tuned because this hearing takes some unexpected turns.

[00:02:15]>> Yeah, we're not going to do the whole that whole dance today.

[00:02:19]Patrick Shannon >> As I stated before, I'm a living breathing woman. My name is Lynn Matulana. My date of birth is 6 12 65.

[00:02:32]>> Okay.

[00:02:34]So, ma'am, it looked like you wanted to have a contested hearing today.

[00:02:38]>> Yes.

[00:02:39]>> You've heard me talk to the other folks about what I can and can't do if we do a contested hearing, right?

[00:02:44]>> Yes.

[00:02:45]>> Okay.

[00:02:46]>> And what I'd like to do is provide the court a couple documents >> Okay.

[00:02:52]>> that need to be part of the recording.

[00:02:55]Do I just step up or do I give >> Hold on, is this evidence regarding your case?

[00:02:59]>> Yes.

[00:03:00]>> What kind of evidence?

[00:03:02]>> This is some recorded documents regarding my um status as a national versus >> doing that. So, if you have documents about your in >> have to do this. The whole idea >> hold on.

[00:03:16]>> The whole idea is that I have never committed a crime.

[00:03:24]I haven't I've I have no I >> three facts there. Three traffic infractions.

[00:03:29]>> Right.

[00:03:29]>> One's for not having insurance, one's for not registering a vehicle.

[00:03:33]>> whole idea is that this documentation that is recorded in a court this documentation >> is it from?

[00:03:41]>> This is from Pima County, Arizona.

[00:03:44]>> Pima County? I don't This isn't Pima County, Arizona.

[00:03:47]>> that's why I want it recorded here.

[00:03:48]>> No, we're not doing that.

[00:03:49]>> Um it needs to be recorded here. I'll walk you not germane to your case.

[00:03:52]>> Yeah, it's very germane to my case because the the key here is as a citizen of the corporation, I'm not subject to the statutes. I'm subject to laws.

[00:04:03]>> I understand.

[00:04:03]>> Okay? I very well I take very good care of all my things. I'm going to ask that you dismiss it.

[00:04:10]>> Do you have insurance?

[00:04:10]>> I operate off of bond. I'm not subject to insurance and I have documentation on that, too. Um >> So, you filed a bond with the state of Washington?

[00:04:20]>> But, you cannot you cannot >> This is where the hearing moves into territory that many viewers will recognize. The defendant argues that certain statutes do not apply to her because of how she views her legal status. Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected similar arguments over the years. Notice what the judge does here. He doesn't spend much time debating the theory. Instead, he keeps returning to the issues that matter for this hearing. Was the vehicle properly registered? Was there valid insurance?

[00:04:50]Did the traffic violation occur? The two sides are almost having different conversations. The judge is talking about facts and evidence. The defendant is talking about personal status and jurisdiction. When those discussions don't connect to the actual charges, it becomes very difficult to build an effective defense.

[00:05:08]>> Did you file a bond with the state of Washington?

[00:05:11]>> Not with the state of Washington, no.

[00:05:13]>> All right.

[00:05:14]>> So, >> That's fine.

[00:05:15]>> But, I mean, even I I have all this that I registered with the Department of State >> Okay.

[00:05:23]>> and the Department of um and I use a passport and seen >> Okay.

[00:05:30]>> from the Department of State and this is what this documentation shows everything that I've submitted to the US government regarding my status.

[00:05:39]>> Okay. So, certainly I'm going to >> And I have record of a trust, too.

[00:05:44]>> Okay.

[00:05:44]>> So, the second thing is that you every single infraction creates a bond under my account under my straw man name.

[00:05:54]>> So here's what I'm >> So I'm going to ask that you >> to allow you I'm going to allow you to make any argument you want about either whether you had insurance or whether your vehicle was registered or about the traffic control device. You and I are going to agree to disagree about the court's jurisdiction.

[00:06:15]I'm willing to hear that evidence. If >> I do not I do not contract. I was riding with my in my husband's car but I do not contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

[00:06:24]>> Okay. I'm going to make my decision and you are fine with you can appeal it to the superior court in court county, okay? The court court is going to make the following findings.

[00:06:36]This is Officer Leon's report.

[00:06:39]I did provide the uh petitioner Ms. Matulana the opportunity to provide evidence. [clears throat] Uh seems that she's contesting the court's jurisdiction or personhood and so forth in front of the court which is fine. That's what a person can do.

[00:06:56]And certainly if I'm wrong about the court's jurisdiction over a case that takes place in Richfield, Washington the superior court will tell me so.

[00:07:03]Um the officer's information shows that this red hatchback was approaching a stop eastbound off 85th Avenue in the city of Richfield, Washington.

[00:07:13]That the vehicle did not slow or stop at the intersection which had clearly marked stop signs.

[00:07:19]As a result of that first infraction the officer initiated contact by turning on his flashing emergency lights.

[00:07:26]Uh the officer approached the driver.

[00:07:28]This is Officer Leon of the Richfield Police Department.

[00:07:32]Um the vehicle had pulled over.

[00:07:35]Um the officer identifies the license plate Washington BFL 4269, explains the reason for the stop, asked the driver for her license. She states quote, I've dealt with you guys before and I don't provide information.

[00:07:51]The officer again asked for her driver's license, which she did provide. She's identified as Lynn Matuliona by her Washington driver's license.

[00:08:00]As Matuliona said she would not provide insurance or proof of registration, she stated, I don't have to give you that.

[00:08:07]When I explained that they are required to be provided to law enforcement on traffic stops, she stated quote, no it's not. I'm traveling.

[00:08:14]She did I did inform Matuliona that I would note in citation that she refused to provide documentation to me during the stop.

[00:08:21]I then issued six sector citation to Matuliona for failure to obey a traffic control device, failure to renew or having expired registration of greater than two months, and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

[00:08:34]I'm going to find based on the officer's report and the fact that the petitioner today has provided no evidence that the failure to obey traffic control device was did take place and find that committed.

[00:08:47]>> As the judge reads through the officer's report, we finally get a clearer picture of what started this entire situation.

[00:08:54]According to the report, the traffic stop began because the vehicle allegedly failed to stop at a posted stop sign.

[00:09:01]From there, the officer asked for the usual documents, including proof of registration and insurance. In traffic court, an officer's report can carry a lot of weight, especially when there is little evidence presented to challenge it. That's why responding with facts and documentation is so important. If someone believes the officer made a mistake, this is usually the time to present proof that tells a different story. Without that, the judge is often left with only one version of events supported by official records, which can make the outcome much easier to predict.

[00:09:35]>> financial amount in the amount of $150.

[00:09:38]The second is to have the expired registration. Again, I asked the petitioner if she wanted to provide evidence regarding the status of her registration. She said no. So again, I'm going to find that the failure to renew or having expired registration is also committed in the amount of $242.

[00:09:59]The operating a vehicle without insurance, I did ask Ms. Matulionis stated she had a bond on file with the state of Washington.

[00:10:07]That is an option in lieu of insurance.

[00:10:10]I asked her to show me the bond, which she did not agree to show me the bond. She then confirmed that she did not actually have a bond through the state of Washington.

[00:10:19]So I'm going to find that Ms. Matulionis has not provided any evidence regarding the insurance as well, be a $564 fine.

[00:10:27]I did inform Ms. Matulionis that she could appeal my decision to superior court in Clark County. I do want to note she did leave the courtroom prior to me making these rulings and findings. I did not excuse her, but she did choose to go.

[00:10:41]With that, I think we are docket complete unless the clerks can tell me I have something else that I've neglected to do.

[00:10:48]>> In the end, the case comes down to three main issues: the traffic violation, the registration problem, and the lack of insurance. Throughout the hearing, the judge repeatedly gave the defendant chances to present evidence related to each of these points. However, instead of focusing on those specific issues, the argument stayed centered on jurisdiction, personal status, and sovereign citizen-style claims. After reviewing the officer's report and finding no evidence to challenge the citations, the judge ruled that the violations were proven and imposed the fines. One of the most notable moments was when the defendant left before hearing the full decision, allowing the court to finish the ruling in her absence. Whether you see this as a warning about courtroom strategy or just an unusual legal moment, the lesson is clear. Courts rely on evidence and law, not personal declarations. What's your view on how the judge handled this situation? Did he stay fair and patient, or should he have approached it differently? If you found this case as interesting as we did, make sure to hit the like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more real courtroom breakdowns and legal stories.