There was a post over at NahRight this morning that linked to a rather fascinating article in XXL Magazine on former Dipset member Max B. The article focused on Max B's recent emancipation from his recording contract with Byrd Gang Records, along with the usual trash talking, in this case directed at ex-boss Jim Jones, that seems to be a mandatory part of the separation process whenever a rapper leaves his former place of employment. Halfway through the piece, Max makes the extraordinary claim that not only has he escaped the clutches of his former label, he has now attained immunity from the prosecution of all future crimes short of violent assault. Here's the excerpt from the article:
The rapper said he was able to get out of his contract through legal negotiations. He explained he's received paper work from the New York Secretary of State that prevents [Jim] Jones from pursuing legal action against Max B. in the future. He’s recognized as Persona Suri Juris.
"I'm not even part of the U.S. Government laws," Max B. said. "I'm not a citizen of the United States, I'm dead ass. My laws, the laws you go by, I don't have to follow. As long as I don't purposely hurt nobody, I'm straight."
Most publications would have offered up, at the very least, a brief description of what "Persona Suri Juris" meant, however XXL apparently assumed, perhaps after a thorough examination of their subscription base, that everyone reading their magazine was already well versed in legal matters. Or perhaps the editors, not unlike Max B, had no idea what the phrase meant, and decided to just let it slide rather than attempt anything that may have been misconstrued as actual journalism. In any event, the lack of details left many, myself included, wondering whether there was any truth to Max B's claim, and if so, how others might gain similar legal status.
At this point I should state that, several semesters of Constitutional Law notwithstanding, I am not a lawyer. I am related to a couple of them, however, and, more importantly, I am capable of typing the phrase "Persona Suri Juris" into a search engine to do some basic research on the issue. What follows is my best guess as to what Max's legal status is, but since I have no way of contacting him or his lawyer(s) this is all conjecture on my part. So take it for what it's worth.
My investigation began with an email to my brother (long time readers may know him as commenter "EZ Rider"), who practices law down in Jacksonville. He suggested that Max B may have conflated two similar legal terms: Non Sui Juris (alternatively, Sui Iuris) and Propria Persona Sui Juris (in either case, it's "Sui Juris" not "Suri Juris" as originally reported by XXL). Non Sui Juris would seem to cover the first issue, that of releasing Max B from his recording contract. The concept of Sui Juris was established in the decision from Ardolino v. Reinhardt, 1909:
Cases arise where children are so young that they have no capacity to appreciate danger or to avoid it, and, hence, are non sui juris as matter of law, in which case the negligence of their parents or custodian is a matter of inquiry, and if any exists it is imputable to the infant. Other cases arise in which it may be a question of fact for a jury as to whether an infant is sui juris or non sui juris, and even if found to be non sui juris, still such infant is bound to exercise such care in avoiding the injury of which he complains as he can reasonably be expected to exercise in view of his years and capacity and intelligence and experience.
Further clarified by the decision in McIntosh v. Dill, 1922:
Due to the consideration of these additional factors, case law does not preclude the finding that a child over the age of four may never be non sui juris as a matter of law. A case might well arise in which the court could properly hold as a matter of law that the injured child was non sui juris even though it was over the age of four, on the ground that it is so lacking in intelligence and experience as to be incapable of appreciating the nature of the danger and of taking precautions to avoid injury to itself. Such a determination, would nevertheless require substantial evidence regarding the child's lack of intelligence and immaturity.
In other words, Max B was found by the court to be either too young, or too mentally incompetent, to comprehend and agree to the terms of his original recording contract. Thus, the contract was never legally binding and Max B is under no obligation to continue working for Byrd Gang Records.
Ok, so that part makes sense. Things get a little trickier when it comes to Max's second claim, that of not being "part of the U.S. Government laws." Non Sui Juris doesn't cover that, but there is some precedent for claiming Persona Sui Juris in an attempt to avoid legal prosecution under U.S. law. Google didn't offer up a whole lot of information in regards to that, however, so I opened the question up to the people over at The Straight Dope for further clarification (for those of you unfamiliar with The Straight Dope, start here).
It seems that the concept of Persona Sui Juris is quite popular among tax evaders, militiamen and various other groups living on the fringe of U.S. society. What it entails - in very general details, I'll leave it up to you to investigate the finer details (though you can start with this .PDF document for one man's use of it to allegedly avoid paying taxes to the IRS) - is declaring yourself a sovereign entity, seperate from the United States and therefor outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement. There doesn't seem to be any documented case of a U.S. court recognizing an individual as sovereign, however (the closest thing I could find was the case of an Iranian man who was stuck in a French airport for 10 years after losing his citizenship), so it seems unlikely that this argument would hold up as a defense against any sort of prosecution. The closest thing I can think of within U.S. borders are the Native American settlements, but that doesn't seem to be the angle that Max is taking with this. Even if Persona Sui Juris were a legally viable argument, one of the commenters in the Straight Dope discussion, Huerta88, summed up the main problem with it rather well:
[N]o matter how eloquent or elegant or well-founded your legal argument -- you lose the legal debate when a federal judge with Marshals and the National Guard at his disposal decides he doesn't accept it. Since most arguments of the type we are discussing here are most commonly advanced in furtherance of political theories that would deprive the judges of their salaries and of their power to control your conduct through main force, it is very unlikely indeed that any such argument will be found persuasive when put to said judge.
My best guess is that Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez, the current New York Secretary of State, declared Max B. to be Non Sui Juris, and at some point between then and now Max got that confused with Persona Sui Juris. So what we have now is a man who has been arrested for murder and robbery walking around the streets of New York with the idea in his head that he is, for all intents and purposes, above the law. Surely this can't end well, for him or his next victim.
As for any of you out there who would like to declare yourselves Persona Sui Juris, you can start by filling out this document (link to Word .doc file). Let me know how it goes, as I could really use the extra money that would come with not having to pay taxes.
Also, I know a fair amount of (RIAA) lawyers read this site, so feel free to leave a comment and correct any mistakes I may have made. Like I said, I don't have a law degree and this is by no means legal counsel.
|
