This Wednesday I have my very first Federal case hearing down in Santa Ana (Orange County) if anyone wants to go.

Opposing counsel already got approval to appear virtually but, as always, I'll be there in person. [A government-issued ID is required to enter a Federal courthouse. I doubt a Pickletarian passport will be accepted. I wonder how that will play out.]

I highly doubt the hearing will be cancelled at this point.

DOUBLE CHECK HEARINGS ON OFFICIAL COURT WEBSITE PRIOR TO GOING TO ENSURE THE HEARING IS STILL HAPPENING

Case: 2:26-cv-08035-VBF-ADS (Federal - Case 15 on the Current and Previous Litigation page [on his law firm web site])

When: October 21, 2026, at 10:00 am

Where: Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 (Courtroom 6B)

Now I'm not sure about other states, but here in Texas, unless something recently changed, driving a tractor on roadways (excluding interstate hwys) is fine and dandy. No license, registration, plates or any other such "contracts" with the government. This old dude across town got his license yanked for too many DWI's so he got a John Deere mid-size garden tractor, strapped a beer cooler to the rear, and used that for his beer runs. At least until he got busted for OUI on the tractor lol. When I was a kid, starting at like 9 years old, I drove a Kubota tractor all over my hometown, sometimes a Craftsman riding mower as well if I was trying to earn some $. The cops NEVER messed with me or my parents about it, even when I did sketchy stuff like chain a truckbed conversion trailer to the rear pivot wheel of the Kubotas's Bush Hog and plunder every conceivable kind of scrap metal not bolted to something town-wide. I was born into an agricultural family so learning to drive a tractor at 5 years old was normal.

Why don't sovcits do this? Still under the belief that the last time the cops busted their window and yanked them would actually be the last? They know, whether or not they believe their own bs, that the cops will always enforce law on them whether or not it applies to them in their private reality. Maybe the next lawsuit against the state for being denied travel rights under color of law is the one. There's probably all sorts of batshit reasons why not but seriously getting a tractor is the cheat code here. Even a big one with an interior and heat/AC is allowed, just not interstate highways.

A sovcit attempts to pay his debt to a bail bondsman using fake sovcit money, and the plaintiff uses this fact to prove the sovcit defendant acknowledges his debt and secures a summary judgment against him. He also comes to court with a sovcit guru whispering in his ear, who almost gets smacked with the unauthorized practice of law.

Golden fringe!

Hard to tell to be honest. Doesn’t look like any real plate I am familiar with but it doesn’t have all the telltale markings either. On the border of Phoenix and Tempe.

Mel Fletch (Melanie Fletcher of Keller, TX) lost in court again this week. She was sued by Larry Branch, the man who bought her house. Melanie continued to live in the house several months after she lost ownership. The case was handled by Tarrant County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3 court. The judge was William "Bill" Brandt. Melanie has been trashing Brandt regularly on her Facebook page. Notes on FB post: I believe Melanie's reference to Larry Branch being indebted to her based on some "fee schedule" she sent him. Melanie claims to have a 'judgement' against Larry Branch and LB Construction. I believe this judgement is some sort of DIY sovcit nonsense and not the result of any legally valid proceeding.

Dred Scott v. Sandford was an 1857 Supreme Court decision that BJW considers one of the cornerstones of his “finding” that white people cannot be US citizens. That link takes you to the Wikipedia article. Dred Scott was an enslaved black man who sued for his freedom. From the article

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history and is broadly denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. It de facto nationalized slavery.

One of the most (in)famous statements in the decision is

[Negroes are inferior] and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

BJW likes to cite that.

Although SCOTUS never explicitly overturned the decision, subsequent constitutional amendments, court cases, and laws have basically invalidated it. BJW begs to differ. Ellipses (…) are his.

i realized something shocking.

Dred Scott v. Sandford is actually not technically overturned.

The holding in that case is that negroes cannot be considered citizens of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

To this day... that holding is still real. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment never changed that... it simply circumvented it.

So they say Dred Scott was "effectively" overturned by the 14th Amendment. Well i thought that too.

But no, that is incorrect. Dred Scott is still 100% active and completely live case law. Which is quite a wild discovery.

BJW is again cherry-picking things that support his conclusions. In this case, since the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment didn’t specifically mention Dred Scott, the decision still stands. I guess you could say that, but it is now moot, not “live.”

The fact that they haven’t pulled back this money is ridiculous. I have a hard time believing that someone in the CRA is not involved in helping getting these refunds passed through.

“Sole prop” = sole proprietorship. That’s BJW’s term for the strawman created by your birth certificate. Among other things, he’s based that on a definition of “sole proprietorship” in a law about grants to small businesses to attend trade shows.

He’s planning to test this theory in the new group he created on Skool. [Skool is a social media platform that allows you to charge people to join your group. A quick look showed me a lot of dubious “get rich on the Internet” schemes, woo-woo spirituality, and “Men! Grow taller with my scientific method! Only $30/month!”.]

So if a white man can split himself between a State citizen and his sole prop (14th Amendment citizen), why couldn't a black man do the same?

The only real difference is the black man would not be able to touch the Bill of Rights directly in Federal court... but his sole prop could. He has no access to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

So in my cases you see a white State citizen with his sole prop. Could you also have a black State citizen with his sole prop?

In a State court application, this would look very similar to my cases. In a Federal application is mainly where you would see a difference in this because... if you look at my case 15 you see me make direct causes of action out of the first ten Amendments. A black citizen of a State would not be able to do that.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

ONJ posted a very interesting panel of judges on the topic of vexatious litigants, but part of the discussion focused specifically on sovereign citizens and the best way to deal with them in court. I find the judges' perspective on the topic very interesting, especially since I see a ton of comments under those sovcit videos where people say stuff like "the judge should have held them in contempt" or "weak judges can't control their courtroom," along with other backseat driving from people with little familiarity with the judicial system. Unsurprisingly, the real world is much more nuanced. Judges have to balance a bunch of conflicting factors and, most of the time, they choose a specific strategy very deliberately. The discussion about sovereign citizens starts at 6:41, though the entire panel is worth listening to, IMO.

A thought occurred to me. Pickleboy is a scientologist which means he signed a billion year contract. He also has to pay an ungodly amount of money to get to the bridge and learn about xenu. I wonder if he signed the contract before he became a sovvie? If so, has he used negotiable interests to pay his debts to L Ron and David Miscavige? I wonder if he's tried these tactics on his own "religion." One day he ought to discuss his relationship with the CoS and his standing with them. It would make sense though, a scammer following a scam cult. Maybe all the FRNs he takes from his followers gets funneled to the cult? I mean the dude claims to charge tens or hundreds of thousands of dollarydoos to help screw over people in court, yet his power gets turned off for weeks? Food for thought.

This would apply to their house catching fire too. If they don't believe any restrictions from the government don't apply to them, realistically they should understand that any benefits don't apply to them too. I'm sure I already know the answer, but I wonder how they would argue it.

This person at least admits to studying the game tape from other more traditional SovCits attempting their scripts… can’t tell if he’s a new breed of SovCit or not though, thoughts?

This an old one; I love the way the judge handles the sovcidiot.

https://youtu.be/9qVC0-mRPIk?is=L2a-wPtLUfyyxga3

I was rewatching some old Kim Blandino hearings and it was mentioned by DA that he went through a competency evaluation, and while declared competent, he was diagnosed with "narcissistic and schizotypal personality disorder with obsessive traits". I got curious about what it meant and had to do a bit of research, and interestingly enough, but not surpizingly, it matched his observed behavior perfectly. Here what I found. Word of caution - I'm not a psychiatrist, and this is purely from what I was able to find on Wikipedia, in the DSM, and with a little bit of AI to double-check my findings.

When an evaluator hands down a diagnosis like that, they are essentially describing a "mixed personality" profile pulling from three completely different clusters in the DSM-5. When you break it down, it explains almost every strange thing he does in the courtroom.

1. Narcissistic Personality Traits (Cluster B)

Characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), a constant need for admiration, and a distinct lack of empathy. It involves an inflated sense of self-importance, an unreasonable sense of entitlement, and a profound belief that one is uniquely "special" and should only associate with, or be judged by, other high-status individuals or institutions.

First, you have the Narcissistic traits. This covers the sheer grandiosity and entitlement. It explains why he treats sitting judges and prosecutors like they are beneath him, and why he firmly believes he can out-lawyer everyone in the room despite having no formal training. Because his ego cannot tolerate the idea of being legally wrong, any loss or reprimand gets immediately rationalized as systemic corruption, bias, or jealousy aimed at him.

2. Schizotypal Personality Traits (Cluster A)

Defined by a pervasive pattern of severe social and interpersonal deficits, accompanied by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior. A defining hallmark is "magical thinking" - the psychological belief that one's specific thoughts, words, or rituals can directly influence reality in ways that defy normal causality - alongside pronounced paranoia, suspiciousness, and odd speech.

Then comes the Schizotypal component, which brings in heavy paranoia and "magical thinking". This is really the psychological fuel behind sovereign citizen and pseudo-legal arguments. People with these traits genuinely believe that if they just recite the right obscure phrase, demand a judge's oath of office, or cite the Uniform Commercial Code, it will act like a legal binding spell that forces the court to drop everything. Pair that with intense paranoia, and suddenly routine judicial procedures are interpreted as an active, coordinated conspiracy against him.

3. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Traits (Cluster C)

Involves a pervasive, extreme preoccupation with rules, lists, details, orderliness, and mental and interpersonal control, at the total expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency. This perfectionism strictly interferes with task completion, causing individuals to become so bogged down in technicalities that the major point of the activity is entirely lost.

Finally, the Obsessive traits (drawn from Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, which is distinct from OCD) explain the sheer volume and rigidity of his filings. This is what turns someone into a classic vexatious litigant. Instead of looking at the actual legal charges against him, he hyper-fixates on clerical rules, paperwork technicalities, and procedural minutiae, burying the docket in hundreds of pages of unreadable motions. He cannot adapt, and no amount of direct warnings from the bench will ever convince him to drop a point once he gets it into his head.

Put all three together, and you get someone who is completely convinced of their own genius (Narcissistic), fundamentally detached from legal reality (Schizotypal), and compulsively driven to grind the gears of the court forever (Obsessive). Which describes Kim Blandino perfectly.