Actual lawyer here. Just in case anyone was somehow unsure, this is utter nonsense.
In fact, calling it nonsense might be giving nonsense a bad name. Completely deranged might be better.
But yes. These people do exist. And they are a pain in the fucking ass. Every 100th filing they actually say something that does have legal precedent, and that you can’t ignore. So you have to actually read every line of their bullshit. Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign…
But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.
I’ve heard what SovCits do being referred to as paper terrorism.
Yep, this is a common expression, and I fully endorse it.
Do you have a public example of a sovereign saying something that has precedent?
The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I’m not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can’t upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I’m probably doing something wrong, haven’t shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I’ll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I’d appreciate it, but I can’t spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.
But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity’s sake. It’s not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but…), it’s that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don’t respond, you lose.
The article said don’t engage them in face to face arguments because they’re insane and that’s a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.
Okay well I just uploaded it to an imgur album. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/yoJch6n
Thanks for sharing, that was interesting
Just for future reference, you can link to things using the following format:
[Your text here](Your link here)
If you want to embed the image to show up in-line with your comment, you add an exclamation point before the first bracket. And whatever you put in the brackets becomes alt text, which users can view by hovering over the image.
To put it into practice, the exclamation point is the difference between the following:
One note is that it’s typically best to start a new line when embedding, since some apps don’t quite know how to parse image width and will run off the edge of the screen (making some/all of the image unviewable.)
Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign…
Has that ever actually happened?
But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.
I’m just amazed that this movement hasn’t sworn off fiat currency while they’re at it. Assuming they’re not paying in precious metals, that is.
can’t something like this ‘legal maneuver’ be used as further evidence to take this numpty’s kids? a sovcit household is obviously not safe place for children.
Ah but they do not identify as a household, it is a domicile containing non-incorporated individuals, so your rules don’t apply.
Do you have any good sovcit stories?
My only experience with one wasn’t all that bad, but still kind of funny.
Client was charged with resisting/obstructing and disorderly conduct. Basically, the cops had closed a road because of an accident. Client was on his bike, and the officer told him the road was closed and he had to go a different way. Client flipped his shit, started yelling that the officer had no right to tell him where to go (yes they do), and no right to ask for identification (yes, they do).
Client finally started going an alternate route, and the officer was going to just let it go. But then he doubled back and tried to blow past the officer. Got arrested. Hired us.
I called the prosecutor to see what kind of reduction they’d be willing to do (standard procedure), and they were willing to drop one charge and reduce the other to an ordinance violation (pay a small fine).
Told the client this, who then flipped out on me for talking to the prosecutor without his consent (???) and without him there (which is, y’know, what he hired us to do). Fired our firm and demanded a refund. We all had a good laugh, and he did not get a refund.
Like an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters…
deleted by creator
Thats pretty much all this sovcit stuff is. They think there’s magic words to circumvent the whole legal system.
That’s what non-experts think about most things that rely on in group knowledge. Like how hackers depicted in movies can do literally anything
“Login with your bank-credentials to receive 80.000 € from a Nigerian prince” is a tried and tested spell since at least the 2.400 BC
Charlie trying to be a lawyer is always the funniest shit.
Well versed in bird law…
I thought of this same clip as I was reading this BS. Bird law is absolutely not governed by reason.
There is a wonderful video of him on this group getting yanked out of his car by the cops for “travelling” with fake license plates.
I think I’ve seen that in Munecat’s video on SovCits. They start screeching “I do not consent” as if that’ll stop the cops.
That’s basically it, they think language works like magic, and there’s a combination of words that will let you get what you want.
I love that he says the court has no jurisdiction over him, then ends his letter with “certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”
Absolutely bonkers.
They believe there exist both a true United States of America, and a completely separate United States of America corporation (whose laws they aren’t subject to).
Then they pick and chose which laws belong to which of the 2 US’s, based on what’s beneficial to them.
As a father going through custody issues the idea that I would forget when a hearing is going to happen is unimaginable. Even if I didn’t have a good lawyer, I’d staple a note to my head to make sure I was at least there for my kids.
I’m not sure if I should be sad one or more kids lost their father, or glad that he probably won’t be involved in their lives.
You’re right to feel both.
This guy is seriously insane, drives with fake license and ID, has harassed his ex, been arrested a LOT, and hasn’t paid taxes in over a decade. He has no contact with his kids anymore and that’s probably good.
We never get the ‘WTF IT DIDN’T WORK’ follow ups in these and, honestly, it feels like holding in a sneeze.
Oh I can help with that, although sometimes they just drop out of sight.
The ostensibly broken vacuum cleaner leaning against the outside of the house is the icing on the cake in that picture
And the cracks in the door!
Okay that’s a beautiful one
I’ve noticed the “policy enforcers” thing before, does saying the word “police” invalidate your personal citizenship or something?
I know it’s all batshit crazy, but this in particular is so odd.
It is against lemmy’s terms of service for you to make posts without including a’ll follow up images.
All rights reserved, with prejudice.
One of the things that’s hard about Lemmy is that you can only post one image at a time. I’ll do better buddy.
After that he was arrested for exposing himself to some people he worked with.
deleted by creator
Ok ok, let’s assume they are right and legal magical words do exist. Why on earth would you write ‘do not construe my words’ on your magical piece of paper? Did they mean misconstrue? Is this some sort of copy pasta nobody reads?
I’m just imaging someone in a powder wig shouting these words, with the same energy as “witness me!”
Probably
Disappointed it didn’t continue rhyming after the first two clauses. Maybe that’s the trick they’re missing to make their legal mumbo jumbo magic work.
The world definitely needs a good sovcit limerick template for legal standards
“I am on the land, I am travelling-” “Not driving.” He continued his babbling Alas, the popo, they broke his window, Dragged him out, now his glass jaw is rattling
-IANAL
Boy, how neat would it be if you could just demand the court drop all charges against you because you choose to not be subject to them? I have to wonder what these SovCit nutjobs think is the reason the rest of the population doesn’t do this. Do they honestly believe they’re just smarter? In possession of some secret knowledge that most people just don’t have? How do you look at the entire rest of the population and think “No, they’re all just wrong, I’m the only one who knows.”
Boy, how neat would it be if you could just demand the court drop all charges against you because you choose to not be subject to them?
I mean, that’s what our former president keeps trying to do. Seems like they’re just following his lead.
Do they honestly believe they’re just smarter? In possession of some secret knowledge that most people just don’t have?
Yes, this is what they believe.
How do you look at the entire rest of the population and think “No, they’re all just wrong, I’m the only one who knows.”
I think narcissism in most cases.
The fact that someone saw this pseudo-17th-century style legalese and thought “this looks legit”, is just wild to me.
This is the kind of thing you perform when role-playing a colonial-era barrister for laughs. Which would be weird, but it would at least make sense.
Anyway, this reads kind of like an attempt to (somehow) opt-out from participating in, well, citizenship (sovereign citizen?). But while retaining the right to stay put. But not as an alien. But then using US law to assert they are not lying, in every version of the US across the entire multiverse (“in all dimensions”)
Worse: it’s riddled with stylistic errors.
It’s utterly atrocious for style but I still can’t wrap my brain around the legal word salad this dude threw out there.
Does anyone know what this is even for? Like…I’m pretty sure you have to volunteer for surety in any form, because it’d be pretty weird if the court could ORDER another person to shove their money into a deal they hadn’t somehow otherwise agreed to.
…and…the statutes and codes are statues and codes… Isn’t color of law is involved when an official is doing something that appears to be official but may not be?
Like, statutes and codes can’t be the SEMBLANCE of law…they ARE the fucking law?
How can you claim to not be under the law and then certify something under penalty of perjury UNDER THE FUCKING LAWS YOU JUST SAID HAVE NO JURIS-MY-DICTION OVER YOU?!?
If this was chanted in unison by a few people at once, it’d resemble a bad tv show witch’s “spell”.
Sounds like a child support suit. Plenty of judges have ordered people to shove their money into a deal they don’t believe they agreed to.
Isn’t it quite a coincidence how so many sovcits seem to be in custody cases? Weird.
It’s kinda funny how he simultaneously has no faith in the institution of the United States but also has full faith to the point where he thinks that they’ll just take his words at face value.
I used to see the insane people sub but it was filled with a lot of not fun to watch insane people. Sovcits are endless entertainment though. I’ve enjoyed this version of the community more than any other, if it ever starts getting a lot of other traffic, I hope you make a dedicated sovcit community
I used to try posting sovcits there but nobody seemed to care for them too much. And yes I sure will make a Lemmy version of AmIBeingDetained!
I agree, some of it was really grim, or people with legitimate mental illnesses. Sovcits though, 🍿
“Order the judge…”
Next on how to receive the maximum
This reminds me of when some idiot gets their hands on a thesaurus. Then, they try to swap out words randomly to make themselves seem smarter, and instead, it comes out total gibberish. Joey from friends comes to mind
Writing cadence of Chris Chan. I am the TRUE and HONEST Socerign citizen and that dang dirty UNITED STATES CORPORATION has no jurisdiction over ME
Love that Chris Chan callback. Fuckin A was it a fucked up time
All dimensions.
Jfc
Missed a black out on the last name.
Ok I fixed it, sorry.
There’s still a last name in the last paragraph, first line. Between the signatures and the thumb print.
