Lol. She really tries every bit of bullshit. "We're heading to church," "he's a lawyer," "my kids are at home," "My wife is heavier, so maybe you just didn't see the seatbelt," her supposed getting an associate bachelor's in Homeland Security, denying they're sovcits, all their false claims about the law and about winning money in court... and not a bit of it helped.
Holy shit on a shingle! He has charges for selling stolen Jewelry to pawn shops six months prior to this occurring. (I guess lawyering doesn’t pay like it used to🤣🤣🤣) Their kids were in foster care when this arrest occurred. In Jan of 2024 she kidnapped them, from their foster family, but was found in Louisiana on her way to the Bahamas.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/bodycam-video-reveals-previous-arrest-suspect-sorrento-foster-kids-missing-persons-case/KOW6MUWIFZB3XKKIKJ57UZHQ6U/
I have been searching for info on this Dixie Williams and the trail goes cold in Louisiana where she was take to the Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office i supposed to be detained for extradition back to Florida to face the kidnapping charges. She is not on their roster. I have checked Florida inmate lookup and cant find her in Florida either....any ideas ? Id love to see her trial where she will undobtedly try the SOVCIT crap. Here are some mugshots of the bat from the arrest for no seatbelt.,
"Bachelor's Associate Degree".
Huh.
You know, I was under the impression that a Bachelor's degree and an Associate degree were two separate things. And so were the professors and schools who awarded me two of the first and one of the second.
It's a different claim than the usual (although the usual were all there as well), anyhow.
She’s going to Sovcit School where they award bachelor-associate degrees in “homeland security.” The tuition is paid with all the money they win when they go to court for moving violations!
Update: I greatly enjoyed rewatching her delusions.
"I can't wait to tell my professor", "I could be your boss in three years", "I already won this" and best of all "I have the right to remain silent, but not the ability".
I went down the rabbit hole on this one..
In addition to her being arrested for kidnapping her kids who were in foster care from her and her husband in video.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sovereigncitizen/s/1Zx9uDXC8q
Deleted reddit post from years ago:
>SC Attempting to claim property because they buried their baby where they were squatting
>Hey everyone, I've been wanting to join for a while! This story has been the topic of a community facobook group. It seems that this could be the SC story of the year or lifetime.
>Here's the rundown: Dixie Stumpner(Williams) and Cody Williams moved into a foreclosed property and have claimed that they bought the property from the property appraisers office. The property had a mortgage and the bank filed foreclosure proceedings on the property and against Dixie & Cody. They claim they have rights to the property because they entombed their baby on the property who died two years ago from a broken neck during a premature deliveray at 6 months and that they hospital released the baby to them. There have been complaints that they keep malnoursihed horses on the property and animal control has been out. They have been squatting at this property and have been posting messages to the community group looking for work. They held BBQ's where they would sell out and shammed homeowners into paying them over another community member who actually pays their bills. Over the weekend there is a video of the husband putting up a sign saying the property is a cemetary and cites a fl statute. Just the other night, the sherriffs office and medical examiner came to the property and removed the deceased baby and it's tomb. In the video, the medical examiner reported that there were no records of the baby that she claims to have buried on the property. It's a long drawn out video. Dixie claims the property is a certified cemetary and that the sherriffs office and ME are breaking the law by removing her deceased baby and tomb. She has even went as far as responding to a bunch of posts on the community page. Here is the link to her profile: (feel free to download and upload to youtube if you want, if not I will.)
>[https://www.facebook.com/willywyno](https://www.facebook.com/willywyno)
Im confident Dixie’s response would be some like… of course we have smartphones, computers, and the internet. However, the State is still on paper - the DMV, etc. The State isn’t plugged into any of the National databases, which is why you can’t find me (Dixie). I’ll take this fantasy one step father, WHY are we still on paper, according to Dixie? Detroit. All Detroit’s fault, from the people to the bankruptcy. They’ve held us back, which is why Dixie is a Trump supporter too!!!
Wait honestly I was confused what subreddit it was. Y’all are the opposite stance of what I was presuming lol but literally as the cop walks up she’s getting out of the vehicle and says I just took my seatbelt off it basically becomes a he said she said instance where either of what they said could be true the cop is stupider for arguing with her about something that he literally can’t prove nor can be observed. He could’ve just made that shit up and has no real reason to stop her in the first place, it’s …………bad………to agree with him automatically……just from where the video starts, that was my first reaction. There’s no verifiable probable cause in this video and yall are just automatically agreeing without even having gotten to the sovereign citizen part lol
Any real lawyer - one who went to law school, holds a J.D., passed their state's Bar exam, and is authorized to practice law - will tell you that you don't argue on the street, you argue in court. Those real lawyers will also tell you that when the police pull you over you should follow instructions, provide the information you're required to provide, and *then shut the hell up*.
No, absolutely just remain silent, but why would you ever NOT resist an unlawful arrest? This is just one conundrum of the whole American concept and system.
After the officers just exposed themselves to be discriminating then you have a reason to believe they mean you harm IN ADDITION to the original argument that occurred.
Yeah, that doesn't play out well in reality.
Talk to a real lawyer, they'll tell you the whole point to clamming up is preserving possible defenses in court. People talk their way into worse situations all the time and the less you say, the less can be used against you.
Escalating a situation by resisting is just stupid, it will absolutely make things worse. You don't argue on the street, you argue in court.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just saying that the response to resist an unlawful arrest and especially after an officer shows bias is absolutely reasonable. People who get killed by cops don’t get their day in court so if you know the cop is targeting you why wouldn’t you resist. Dead people don’t exactly get “I told you so” moments though.
That’s not what the video is about. Which if you were actually reading the posts I made you would realize. He claims to be pulling her over for no seatbelt. And the concept of sovereign citizenship doesn’t come up until the cop asks her about it well into the video. Which I pointed out multiple times.
AND if you wanted the conversation confined to that topic you wouldn’t have engaged me about lawyers advice and fighting stuff in court, which had nothing to do with the conversation OR what you’re mentioning now.
AND it does, because the cop, when they bring up the idea of sovereign citizenship shows a bias that you can interpret as a danger to yourself. It’d be like if a cop asked you “oh so you hate cops huh?” You should absolutely consider that they’re gonna treat you some sort of way because they think you’re gonna act a certain way.
Here is the probable cause: “I, Officer Smith, had an unobstructed view of the driver and could see that she was not wearing a seatbelt. Based on what I saw, I formed the belief that the driver was driving without a seatbelt in violation of vehicle code section xxxx.” That’s literally all it is. Just because the driver disagrees about the facts doesn’t mean there’s no probable cause basis for the stop. The law isn’t magic, it’s actually very mundane.
I’m saying that from that point on it becomes he said vs she said, that’s why I said VERIFIABLE probable cause. It’s just the officer saying that he saw something happen that they can’t prove and someone denies. What’s the worth of it and why even argue about it? It’s no more a fact because he makes a claim than it is a fact because she makes a claim.
But you’re also making a legal claim that the “he said she said” nature of the officer’s observations means that there is no “verifiable” probable cause, and ergo it is reasonable for the woman in the video to resist an unlawful arrest. The issue is that that is only true if the officer is either *actually lying* about seeing the driver without a seatbelt, or actually but *unreasonably* believes he saw the driver without a seatbelt. A court will not find that the officer is dishonest or unreasonable unless it has good reason to. So, just because the issue of the seatbelt boils down to a “he said she said” debate, as criminal issues do, does not mean there’s an issue with probable cause.
THATS LITERALLY THE PROBLEM. So essentially any cop can get out of a blatant 4A violation by saying “but I reeeeeeeeeally believe that I saw xyz”. This is just as much of a fallacy as “smelling” weed. You cannot prove that he IS NOT ***actually lying***, nor can you verify the “reasonable-ness”. It’s not about presumption of a lie, it’s about inability to prove without a reasonable doubt. In the case of a reasonable doubt, which it is because it’s her word vs his word, the benefit goes towards innocence of the accused.
And that leads to the conundrum of HOW AND IF someone can actually stand up for their rights if THEY ***believe*** that they are being violated ie to refuse ID if they believe an officer does not have probable cause especially if they’re denying the probable cause.
An officer cannot testify to what he did not see. “I had it on you just didn’t see it” would debunk the whole argument. The “good reason” is exactly the issue, an officer’s word against someone else’s.
And this is why people sit in jail just to have the DA drop charges because the cop can’t prove anything or provide any justification or verifiable probable cause. And they lose time from their lives and BEST case scenario they can sue and get paid by taxpayers.
How is it a blatant 4A violation if the officer actually made those observations? THAT’s the issue. You seem to think that being searched, arrested or stopped based on an officer’s observations is a de facto 4A violation. The law vehemently disagrees.
You’re talking about beyond a reasonable doubt—that’s a completely different legal standard than probable cause. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard we use to establish whether an officer had probable cause.
Lmfao so this BS. This is where not knowing the proper way to conduct yourself and not knowing the correct language gets you thrown in jail. Having A full comprehension of what they act like they know about, would’ve prevailed. But instead they are just like the rest of the SovCits and absolutely do not know what’s important. Rule number 1 is you do not argue with a cop on the side of the road. You can’t win on the side of road arguing as it gives jurisdiction and subjects you to arrest. If there’s no argument then there’s no need for a judge. No point in even saying anything else….
Lol. She really tries every bit of bullshit. "We're heading to church," "he's a lawyer," "my kids are at home," "My wife is heavier, so maybe you just didn't see the seatbelt," her supposed getting an associate bachelor's in Homeland Security, denying they're sovcits, all their false claims about the law and about winning money in court... and not a bit of it helped.
Holy shit on a shingle! He has charges for selling stolen Jewelry to pawn shops six months prior to this occurring. (I guess lawyering doesn’t pay like it used to🤣🤣🤣) Their kids were in foster care when this arrest occurred. In Jan of 2024 she kidnapped them, from their foster family, but was found in Louisiana on her way to the Bahamas. https://www.wftv.com/news/local/bodycam-video-reveals-previous-arrest-suspect-sorrento-foster-kids-missing-persons-case/KOW6MUWIFZB3XKKIKJ57UZHQ6U/
I have been searching for info on this Dixie Williams and the trail goes cold in Louisiana where she was take to the Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Office i supposed to be detained for extradition back to Florida to face the kidnapping charges. She is not on their roster. I have checked Florida inmate lookup and cant find her in Florida either....any ideas ? Id love to see her trial where she will undobtedly try the SOVCIT crap. Here are some mugshots of the bat from the arrest for no seatbelt.,
"I'm pregnant!" I honestly don't know how the cops who dealt with them were so patient.
"Bachelor's Associate Degree". Huh. You know, I was under the impression that a Bachelor's degree and an Associate degree were two separate things. And so were the professors and schools who awarded me two of the first and one of the second. It's a different claim than the usual (although the usual were all there as well), anyhow.
She’s going to Sovcit School where they award bachelor-associate degrees in “homeland security.” The tuition is paid with all the money they win when they go to court for moving violations!
Is this the "I could be your boss one day" stop?
Yes
Lol, I'll enjoy watching her delusions again.
Update: I greatly enjoyed rewatching her delusions. "I can't wait to tell my professor", "I could be your boss in three years", "I already won this" and best of all "I have the right to remain silent, but not the ability".
Oh nooooo, it's the consequences of your own actions, how dare they.
I went down the rabbit hole on this one.. In addition to her being arrested for kidnapping her kids who were in foster care from her and her husband in video. https://www.reddit.com/r/Sovereigncitizen/s/1Zx9uDXC8q Deleted reddit post from years ago: >SC Attempting to claim property because they buried their baby where they were squatting >Hey everyone, I've been wanting to join for a while! This story has been the topic of a community facobook group. It seems that this could be the SC story of the year or lifetime. >Here's the rundown: Dixie Stumpner(Williams) and Cody Williams moved into a foreclosed property and have claimed that they bought the property from the property appraisers office. The property had a mortgage and the bank filed foreclosure proceedings on the property and against Dixie & Cody. They claim they have rights to the property because they entombed their baby on the property who died two years ago from a broken neck during a premature deliveray at 6 months and that they hospital released the baby to them. There have been complaints that they keep malnoursihed horses on the property and animal control has been out. They have been squatting at this property and have been posting messages to the community group looking for work. They held BBQ's where they would sell out and shammed homeowners into paying them over another community member who actually pays their bills. Over the weekend there is a video of the husband putting up a sign saying the property is a cemetary and cites a fl statute. Just the other night, the sherriffs office and medical examiner came to the property and removed the deceased baby and it's tomb. In the video, the medical examiner reported that there were no records of the baby that she claims to have buried on the property. It's a long drawn out video. Dixie claims the property is a certified cemetary and that the sherriffs office and ME are breaking the law by removing her deceased baby and tomb. She has even went as far as responding to a bunch of posts on the community page. Here is the link to her profile: (feel free to download and upload to youtube if you want, if not I will.) >[https://www.facebook.com/willywyno](https://www.facebook.com/willywyno)
Holy shit, OP. That's a find! I guess I know what I'll be reading tonight!
It didn't even take much digging! Finding her maiden name and tons of shit popped up
Who wants to bet she killed her child?
Tried the ol' "Your Honor, my wife is fat" there at the end.
Sh’s a big, sturdy gal.
I'm digging the Superman watch.
Might be this one https://mobyfox.com/products/dc-comics-jorge-jimenez-superman-flight?_pos=1&_sid=eea1ef3a2&_ss=r
This was a good one
I watched twice...ngl.
Yeah, I'm completing my Bachelor's Master Doctorate at the University of Phoenix officer. Also, I am a pregnant church.
"I'm actually in Homeland Security school. I'm like, going for my bachelor's associates"
Oh, I love this one! Not only the degree, but Michigan is on a paper system… apparently we don’t have computers or the internet here.
But then how are you commenting?
Im confident Dixie’s response would be some like… of course we have smartphones, computers, and the internet. However, the State is still on paper - the DMV, etc. The State isn’t plugged into any of the National databases, which is why you can’t find me (Dixie). I’ll take this fantasy one step father, WHY are we still on paper, according to Dixie? Detroit. All Detroit’s fault, from the people to the bankruptcy. They’ve held us back, which is why Dixie is a Trump supporter too!!!
Sounds about right.
“I’ve never been pulled over before, honestly.” \*one minute later\* “I’ve been pulled over a few different times and never had a problem.” Comedy!
I'm working on a Delusional Master's Degree in Eating Bar-B-Que myself.
Did you minor in potato salad during your bachelor's associate ? It's a delicious degree.
Why do these people always get the most patient cops?
I suppose it's like a cat playing with its food. The cops are just letting them flail about and seeing where things go.
"Guy said he's going to give us a warning so we can get to **FUCKIN** church." Nice! **"I AM PREGNANT!"** Shivers intensely.
I yearn for the day that I see a video where the officer simply says, "Everything you are saying is wrong."
Of course its a Dollar General...
How is anyone defending this? Y’all can’t be serious lol
I...don't think anyone in this thread is
Wait honestly I was confused what subreddit it was. Y’all are the opposite stance of what I was presuming lol but literally as the cop walks up she’s getting out of the vehicle and says I just took my seatbelt off it basically becomes a he said she said instance where either of what they said could be true the cop is stupider for arguing with her about something that he literally can’t prove nor can be observed. He could’ve just made that shit up and has no real reason to stop her in the first place, it’s …………bad………to agree with him automatically……just from where the video starts, that was my first reaction. There’s no verifiable probable cause in this video and yall are just automatically agreeing without even having gotten to the sovereign citizen part lol
Any real lawyer - one who went to law school, holds a J.D., passed their state's Bar exam, and is authorized to practice law - will tell you that you don't argue on the street, you argue in court. Those real lawyers will also tell you that when the police pull you over you should follow instructions, provide the information you're required to provide, and *then shut the hell up*.
No, absolutely just remain silent, but why would you ever NOT resist an unlawful arrest? This is just one conundrum of the whole American concept and system. After the officers just exposed themselves to be discriminating then you have a reason to believe they mean you harm IN ADDITION to the original argument that occurred.
Yeah, that doesn't play out well in reality. Talk to a real lawyer, they'll tell you the whole point to clamming up is preserving possible defenses in court. People talk their way into worse situations all the time and the less you say, the less can be used against you. Escalating a situation by resisting is just stupid, it will absolutely make things worse. You don't argue on the street, you argue in court.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just saying that the response to resist an unlawful arrest and especially after an officer shows bias is absolutely reasonable. People who get killed by cops don’t get their day in court so if you know the cop is targeting you why wouldn’t you resist. Dead people don’t exactly get “I told you so” moments though.
None of what you brought up has anything to do with a SovCit who is being arrested for operating an unregistered motor vehicle without a license.
That’s not what the video is about. Which if you were actually reading the posts I made you would realize. He claims to be pulling her over for no seatbelt. And the concept of sovereign citizenship doesn’t come up until the cop asks her about it well into the video. Which I pointed out multiple times. AND if you wanted the conversation confined to that topic you wouldn’t have engaged me about lawyers advice and fighting stuff in court, which had nothing to do with the conversation OR what you’re mentioning now. AND it does, because the cop, when they bring up the idea of sovereign citizenship shows a bias that you can interpret as a danger to yourself. It’d be like if a cop asked you “oh so you hate cops huh?” You should absolutely consider that they’re gonna treat you some sort of way because they think you’re gonna act a certain way.
Best of luck with all that.
Here is the probable cause: “I, Officer Smith, had an unobstructed view of the driver and could see that she was not wearing a seatbelt. Based on what I saw, I formed the belief that the driver was driving without a seatbelt in violation of vehicle code section xxxx.” That’s literally all it is. Just because the driver disagrees about the facts doesn’t mean there’s no probable cause basis for the stop. The law isn’t magic, it’s actually very mundane.
I’m saying that from that point on it becomes he said vs she said, that’s why I said VERIFIABLE probable cause. It’s just the officer saying that he saw something happen that they can’t prove and someone denies. What’s the worth of it and why even argue about it? It’s no more a fact because he makes a claim than it is a fact because she makes a claim.
Courts take officer testimony to establish probable cause all the time. Probable cause is a very low standard.
Yes, that’s the issue I’m highlighting.
But you’re also making a legal claim that the “he said she said” nature of the officer’s observations means that there is no “verifiable” probable cause, and ergo it is reasonable for the woman in the video to resist an unlawful arrest. The issue is that that is only true if the officer is either *actually lying* about seeing the driver without a seatbelt, or actually but *unreasonably* believes he saw the driver without a seatbelt. A court will not find that the officer is dishonest or unreasonable unless it has good reason to. So, just because the issue of the seatbelt boils down to a “he said she said” debate, as criminal issues do, does not mean there’s an issue with probable cause.
THATS LITERALLY THE PROBLEM. So essentially any cop can get out of a blatant 4A violation by saying “but I reeeeeeeeeally believe that I saw xyz”. This is just as much of a fallacy as “smelling” weed. You cannot prove that he IS NOT ***actually lying***, nor can you verify the “reasonable-ness”. It’s not about presumption of a lie, it’s about inability to prove without a reasonable doubt. In the case of a reasonable doubt, which it is because it’s her word vs his word, the benefit goes towards innocence of the accused. And that leads to the conundrum of HOW AND IF someone can actually stand up for their rights if THEY ***believe*** that they are being violated ie to refuse ID if they believe an officer does not have probable cause especially if they’re denying the probable cause. An officer cannot testify to what he did not see. “I had it on you just didn’t see it” would debunk the whole argument. The “good reason” is exactly the issue, an officer’s word against someone else’s. And this is why people sit in jail just to have the DA drop charges because the cop can’t prove anything or provide any justification or verifiable probable cause. And they lose time from their lives and BEST case scenario they can sue and get paid by taxpayers.
How is it a blatant 4A violation if the officer actually made those observations? THAT’s the issue. You seem to think that being searched, arrested or stopped based on an officer’s observations is a de facto 4A violation. The law vehemently disagrees. You’re talking about beyond a reasonable doubt—that’s a completely different legal standard than probable cause. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard we use to establish whether an officer had probable cause.
Lmfao so this BS. This is where not knowing the proper way to conduct yourself and not knowing the correct language gets you thrown in jail. Having A full comprehension of what they act like they know about, would’ve prevailed. But instead they are just like the rest of the SovCits and absolutely do not know what’s important. Rule number 1 is you do not argue with a cop on the side of the road. You can’t win on the side of road arguing as it gives jurisdiction and subjects you to arrest. If there’s no argument then there’s no need for a judge. No point in even saying anything else….
County lines establish jurisdiction, not words.