Uploaded October 2022 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
Attorney Patrick J. D'Arcy reviewed cases in California and did not find any defenses that succeeded. To claim sovereignty, a group must have ties to a sovereign status before the federal government was created, or by a treaty after creation. None of that was found in my research. I really enjoy the comments. My video is obviously not an attack on anyone - it's just my findings from research I did, as the question of Constitutional jurisdiction is a cool puzzle. If there are grounds to claim sovereignty, I am happy to hear it. I took one year of Constitutional law at Georgetown, and had Supreme Court justices as lecturers, including federal judges. I handle first amendment cases, so jurisdiction and the outward reaches of Constitutional law is something I deal with in my work. We face sovereignty in many areas. For instance, the University of California is a sovereign system. If you sue them, you must abide by their rules and procedures. This video focuses on the fact that I did not find an any successful uses of a "sovereign citizen" as a defense and why I think the defense fails. In Darrell Brooks' case, the judge didn't care at all. In her mind, whether he was "sovereign" meant nothing. What mattered is if he did the crime as stated in the charging documents. Whether Brooks will then challenge the right of a state court to prosecute him or if the charges pass Constitutional muster is beyond what a state court judge can do. The Constitution's rights of a state court to prosecute is also well-established. I looked at Chisholm v. Georgia - an old US Supreme Court case, but that case was later overruled through the 11th amendment, as it was seen as a federal attack on state sovereignty. The problem with reviewing cases is that it can become disfavored, or limited to its own set of facts. The US Supreme Court, at times, got in the way of FDR's "New Deal," and his threats to "pack the court" meant that they stayed out of interstate commerce cases for the next 40 years. I also looked at the US Supreme Court case involving Rod Glass, In that 2018 decision, it considered whether his guilty plea waived his ability to appeal the Constitutionality of his conviction. It didn't as such rights are preserved. In other words, he pled guilty to a gun charge, but then challenged the law as unconstitutional. He is allowed to do that, because a crime that is unconstitutional can never be enforced. Ironically, by invoking the Constitution's protections, in my opinion, he made himself subject to its jurisdiction. This happens all the time. For instance, in California, Code of Civil Procedure 415.50(b) and the Firemans Fund case pulls you automatically into state court jurisdiction the minute you appear and do not challenge (through what is known as a "special appearance") the state's jurisdiction. This prevents the games from being played where a person participates in a trial, was never served a summons, and then, when the case is lost, appeals on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Thank you for your comments and exchange of information.
Attorney Patrick J. D'Arcy reviewed cases in California and did not find any defenses that succeeded. To claim sovereignty, a group must have ties to a sovereign status before the federal government was created, or by a treaty after creation. None of that was found in my research. I really enjoy the comments. My video is obviously not an attack on anyone - it's just my findings from research I did, as the question of Constitutional jurisdiction is a cool puzzle. If there are grounds to claim sovereignty, I am happy to hear it. I took one year of Constitutional law at Georgetown, and had Supreme Court justices as lecturers, including federal judges. I handle first amendment cases, so jurisdiction and the outward reaches of Constitutional law is something I deal with in my work. We face sovereignty in many areas. For instance, the University of California is a sovereign system. If you sue them, you must abide by their rules and procedures. This video focuses on the fact that I did not find an any successful uses of a "sovereign citizen" as a defense and why I think the defense fails. In Darrell Brooks' case, the judge didn't care at all. In her mind, whether he was "sovereign" meant nothing. What mattered is if he did the crime as stated in the charging documents. Whether Brooks will then challenge the right of a state court to prosecute him or if the charges pass Constitutional muster is beyond what a state court judge can do. The Constitution's rights of a state court to prosecute is also well-established. I looked at Chisholm v. Georgia - an old US Supreme Court case, but that case was later overruled through the 11th amendment, as it was seen as a federal attack on state sovereignty. The problem with reviewing cases is that it can become disfavored, or limited to its own set of facts. The US Supreme Court, at times, got in the way of FDR's "New Deal," and his threats to "pack the court" meant that they stayed out of interstate commerce cases for the next 40 years. I also looked at the US Supreme Court case involving Rod Glass, In that 2018 decision, it considered whether his guilty plea waived his ability to appeal the Constitutionality of his conviction. It didn't as such rights are preserved. In other words, he pled guilty to a gun charge, but then challenged the law as unconstitutional. He is allowed to do that, because a crime that is unconstitutional can never be enforced. Ironically, by invoking the Constitution's protections, in my opinion, he made himself subject to its jurisdiction. This happens all the time. For instance, in California, Code of Civil Procedure 415.50(b) and the Firemans Fund case pulls you automatically into state court jurisdiction the minute you appear and do not challenge (through what is known as a "special appearance") the state's jurisdiction. This prevents the games from being played where a person participates in a trial, was never served a summons, and then, when the case is lost, appeals on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Thank you for your comments and exchange of information.
