One of the subject internet extortionists is an admitted Sovereign Citizen.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Sovereign Citizens believe that they get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. Sovereigns clog up the courts with indecipherable filings and when cornered, many of them lash out in rage, frustration and, in the most extreme cases, acts of deadly violence, usually directed against government officials.
The movement is rooted in racism, branching off from the Semitic Posse Comitatus movement, which teaches that the government has authority over only those citizens who submit to a contract. They believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed citizenship to former slaves and everyone born on U.S. soil, made black Americans permanently subject to a contract with federal and state governments, unlike themselves.
In recent years, Sovereigns attracted Blacks into the movement. They did that under a conspiracy belief that the courts give them special favors as minorities, and if Blacks are successful with Sovereign arguments before the courts, that it will make binding case law to benefit Sovereigns. Actor Wesley Snipes was used in that manner. He was unsuccessful. Snipes was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison, and the Sovereigns who prepared his “14th Amendment” argument in documents were sentenced to 10 years, and 4 ½ years in prison.
Sovereigns have taken advantage of using Blacks such as Wesley Snipes to allege that their ideologies have nothing to do with race. That is directly contradicted by their ideologies of the 14th Amendment. The word “sovereign” can be replaced with “supremacy”. It is a different label but does not change the ideologies.
Because Sovereigns also believe in common law, anyone who disagrees with them or refuses to let them have their way is subjected to harsh retribution.
David Piercy uses numerous handles, among them “Justice For Ted Wafer” and “I Am Not Trayvon Martin.” His IP address, which is redacted in the comments below, is the same, as well as his gravatar and email address. Piercy submitted comments to the blog Blackbutterfly7 using his gravatar account, “stanyerground.”
A visit to the link shows that he has titled his account “Sovereign Citizens of America.”
As seen on his gravatar account, David Piercy uses the photo of a person whom he admires, and he submitted another comment to the blog Blackbutterfly7 demonstrating his racial bigotry and his reason for engaging in illegal behavior against that blog, this blogger, and others.
For those who do not know, “DPTM” referred to in Piercy’s above comment is for the blog “Dothprotesttoomuch.” They were active during the George Zimmerman case and after the verdict, stopped blogging. That is not out of the ordinary. Many blogs, including those that supported George Zimmerman, were abandoned, or made private, or deleted after the verdict. Apparently, in December 2013 when Piercy submitted the above comment, he was aggravated that I continued to blog on Blackbutterfly7. He misconstrues the concentrations of Blackbutterfly7, and until this day, continues to misrepresent it, the contents, and defame me.
The FBI reports that Sovereigns commit “paper terrorism” in the courts. That describes David Piercy. David Piercy has been a party to 15 cases filed in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County.
Since June of 2014, he has filed 5 appeals. One appeal was his attempt to get custody of his wife’s child after the DNA test proved he was not the biological father.
Because his income has been government disability and is currently the Fresno County’s general assistance, the court waives his fees and costs, but David Piercy is an intentionally expensive nuisance to opposing parties. Even in a case that he filed in effort for his own benefit, he filed numerous motions seeking to delay the proceedings. Piercy lost that case but it cost the other party over a thousand dollars. Piercy also lost the appeal. Fifth district decision F069752.
Piercy does not care if he wins or loses in court, because his “common law” sovereign citizen ideology is to hurt the other party, whether that’s in consumption of time, money, emotional distress.
This post is about the currently last appeal that he has filed. I say “currently last appeal” because the year is not over with, and there is a contempt proceeding pending.
On August 28, 2015, in case number 0002534, captioned David Piercy vs. Preservation Hotel California, LP, David Piercy filed an appeal. The case began on May 8, 2015 with the filing of Complaint for unlawful detainer (eviction) by Preservation Hotel California in case number 15CECL03318. Piercy motioned to extend the time for eviction. He then entered into a stipulated agreement with Preservation Hotel California to give him until the last of August to move. The court approved the stipulated agreement.
For the Defendant’s Landlord doing him that favor, Piercy responded in classic sovereign citizenship, paper terrorism fashion. He motioned the court to vacate the order of eviction, and to give him until the end of the lease; to February 2016 to move. The court had previously ordered that the lease was cancelled. The court denied Piercy’s motion.
Continuing in classic Sovereign Citizen fashion, Piercy then motioned the court to vacate the stipulated agreement and grant him another 30 days to move.
“It is important to point out that the stipulated agreement that Defendant signed was exceedingly favorable to him, particularly in light of agreements entered into by most tenant-defendants in similar circumstances. Specifically, Defendant was allowed to remain in possession of the premises for nearly an additional two months and was not required to pay attorney’s fees and court costs. Additionally, and very important to the Defendant, as long as everyone and everything was removed from the premises as agreed, the judgment for restitution would be vacated. This ensured that there would be no eviction or bad credit reflected on his credit history. As stated in the accompanying Declaration of Steven R. Hrdlicka, this fact was very important to Defendant in part because he intends to attend law school and become an attorney.”
The court denied Piercy’s motion, and he filed an appeal. On his Proposed Statement on Appeal, Piercy alleges that the court made the following errors;
“Trial Court allowed Plaintiff to bypass mandatory special notice requirements, affidavit requirements, just cause requirements, and due process requirements to terminate tenancy in government subsidized housing. Was deprived of my constitutionally protected property interest in my subsidized housing without due process.”
The following video is from a lawyer in California. He addresses stipulated agreements and how the courts enforce them. It appears that David Piercy’s argument on appeal is moot because he voluntarily gave up his proposed arguments when he agreed to and signed the stipulated agreement.
Disclaimer: All court documents linked to in this post were obtained without cost from the public website of the California Superior Court.