Fellow Attorneys: In municipal Court next week, I have a trial as requested by a gentleman who claims he is a sovereign citizen, and was not driving - he was merely travelling. While I have observed such claims in District Court, I have not had anyone request a trial on those grounds in municipal Court.  My trial is next Monday.Can anyone guide me to some authority to cite to my municipal Judge to dispute his claims? All information appreciated. Thank you, Kay Wall

So he's going with the Princess Bride affirmative defense - "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". Sadly, the defense, while idiotic, is hardly inconceivable, especially to a group of Municipal Attorneys most of whom have had ample experience dealing with our more "entertaining" citizens... To "travel" (intransitive verb) is to move or undergo transmission from one place to another (per Merriam Webster's online dictionary). There are many ways one can travel, including walking, biking, driving or flying. Hence why travel is an intransitive verb - because it does not require an object to express the thought. By contrast, to "drive" (transitive verb) is to operate the mechanism and controls and direct the course of (a vehicle) (per Merriam Webster's online dictionary). One "drives" a car. One does not "travel" a car. Hence why drive is a transitive verb. You can absolutely stipulate that the Defendant was traveling, but he was doing so by driving a vehicle (I'm guessing at a rate of speed that was in excess of the posted limit). If your Judge would not appreciate the elementary english lesson, then I suppose we could resort to referencing State statutes (which, at times, one might wonder if the author actually passed elementary english) on which I am certain your Ordinances were modeled. A "Driver" is a person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. 47 O.S. 1-114(A). An "Operator" is defined the same way. 47 O.S. 1-140. A License to Operate a Motor Vehicle is identification card issued to a person which grants them the privilege to "operate a motor vehicle." We know from the definitions of Operator and Driver that operating and driving are words that carry the same meaning and are used interchangeably in Title 47. And we know that it is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that exceeds the posted limit. 47 O.S. 11-801. If the Defendant was in the driver's seat with feet on the accelerator and hands on the wheel as that vehicle was traversing the streets of the mean streets of Eufaula at a rate of speed in excess of the posted limit, then he was traveling by why of driving in violation of the City Code. To be honest, I'm surprised that he's only invoking this odd defense and not going the normal route of challenging the City's jurisdiction over him. Our friends in Burns Flat recently had a highly "entertaining" citizen in their Court (and they either don't have a City Prosecutor or that Prosecutor simply was not present) who put on quite a performance in front of their Judge (who I don't think was amused). For those who are curious (or in need of a laugh), a BFPD Officer activated his BWC during the guy's arraignment (which the guy got and posted on his youtube page): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLirj08Kfgk&ab_channel=RomanV.-Serpik Matt On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 3:24 PM Kay Robbins Wall <lkrw@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Fellow Attorneys: > > In municipal Court next week, I have a trial as requested by a gentleman > who claims he is a sovereign citizen, and was not driving - he was merely > travelling. > > While I have observed such claims in District Court, I have not had anyone > request a trial on those grounds in municipal Court. My trial is next > Monday. > Can anyone guide me to some authority to cite to my municipal Judge to > dispute his claims? > > All information appreciated. > > Thank you, > > Kay Wall > -- > Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org >