9 ms·

Sovereign citizenry and misquoting admiralty law in your hearing about driving without valid registration or saying the court doesn't have jurisdiction because

by pc86 2y ago

Sovereign citizenry and misquoting admiralty law in your hearing about driving without valid registration or saying the court doesn't have jurisdiction because the flag has gold fringe on it is so close to mental illness it's hard to assign concepts like "smart" or "dumb" to it.

ronsor 2y ago
Sovereign citizen activities basically have no correlation with intelligence or political views. It's such a strange category of weirdness.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Some people like to portray petty mostly victimless lawlessness as sovereign citizen shenanigans as a means to discredit the reasoning that lead to those people to decide not to follow the law. Not everyone who doesn't get a building permit or a fishing license is a sovereign citizen.
- pas 2y ago
  By what definition of intelligence? :) It seems like a waste of time at best. But have any sovereign citizen got what they wanted at the end of any kind of proceeding? It seems like a very bad strategy to solve their own selfish problems. (DUI, speeding, not paying taxes, going against gun regulations, etc.) And this strategy is usually coming from being unfortunately so tragically misinformed that they cannot help but reject the boring standard model of reality for a bouquet of conspiracy theories.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    They do "win" sometimes. The rational person just pays the ticket. The sovcit demands a jury trial and, rarely, gets a win when a deal is offered or a witness fails to show. And often just having the proceeding is the win. They get off on being the center of attention. Defending themselves in court is the one time all the important people have to listen to them. They enjoy it.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      Do you not have to pay court costs if you’re convicted? That’s a pretty bad gamble if you get convicted maybe 90% of the time?
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the defendant has to pay court costs anyway, win or lose, criminal or civil.
        echoangle 2y ago
        I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs which generally seems to say that you only have to pay in criminal cases if convicted, or in some states never. To clarify, I'm not talking about the costs of your own attorney, but the cost charged by the court itself. I was asking because in Germany, you generally (only) have to pay if you're convicted, I think.
notjulianjaynes 2y ago
In the past I have considered pursuing litigation pro se because it is very difficult to find an attorney willing to take a public records case on contingency. The stereotype that anyone who represents themselves in court must be a soverign loon or think they're Will Hunting is one reason I did not do so. It is not ideal, but neither is not having access to the justice system due to not having a bunch of money to burn.
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I represented myself pro se in a civil matter that really should have been in small claims but was in superior court because of the remedy being sought by the plaintiff. It went fine, ended in settlement in my favor.
EvanAnderson 2y ago
I would love to know the origin of the "gold fringe" bit, specifically. I remember hearing about that in the 90s.
- pc86 2y ago
  It has something to do with (incorrectly believing) what laws apply to what court based on the type of flag. This is from memory so may be wrong but I seem to recall it being basically if there is gold fringe, the court is in/part of a different jurisdiction, and the procedures are different, and as such the (actually correct) procedures the judge and prosecutors follow are viewed as incorrect by the SC.
  - EvanAnderson 2y ago
    I'm aware of what the belief is (admiralty court, all that hokum...). I'm interested to know the actual origin of the belief-- like who was "patient 0" for coming up with the silliness. It's probably lost to time...
- c22 2y ago
  https://starspangledflags.com/did-you-know-what-gold-fringe-means-on-the-american-flag https://starspangledflags.com/did-you-know-what-gold-fringe-...
- sandworm101 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0 https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0 https://www.flags.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-fringed-flags/ https://www.flags.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about... >> While some people believe that the fringe has symbolic meaning, its primary purpose is ornamental, giving the flag an air of distinction and honor. Fringed flags are usually displayed on indoor flagpoles, though they may also be used in parades or during other ceremonial presentations. It’s important to note that these flags are not typically flown outside, as the fringe is not designed to withstand outdoor weather conditions. In short: people get confused because they only see the fringe on special occasions or indoors as in courtrooms. It has no meaning.
sandworm101 2y ago
It isnt mental illness. Having incorrect beliefs is different than being insane. But it is a mental heath issue that leads people to adopt these beliefs. Be it flat earth, Qanon or Sovcit, people under stress will reach out to conspiracy theories in an attempt to regain a sense of community and control whilst thier lives are otherwise going off the rails. The beliefs are the symptom, not the disease. With sovcit specifically, there is also a rational layer. Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny. This comes from TV and the news that never explain the nuance of legal practice. They arent insane, just very incorrectly educated. Rosa parks was not insane. She knew she was breaking the law. The rational sovcit thinks themselves the next Rosa Parks, but mistakenly believe that means they cannot be arrested. Rational but wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny pc86 didn’t say sovereign citizenry is mental illness per se. They said it’s indistinguishable from mental illness if pursued all the way to a hearing. At that point, enough flags have been intentionally ignored to validly cross into delusion.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    But i would say they are very distinguishable. The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. The incorrect behavior (speeding) is identical but the overall situation is very distinguishable.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines This is a stretch, but possible. It breaks when that man is pulled over, cited, given the opportunity to research or consider another viewpoint, and then shows up in court to plead that case. That’s invisible-spiders levels of delusion, and while it may not be caused by a chemical or physical problem in the brain, it’s indistinguishable from it.

by pc86 2y ago

ronsor 2y ago

Sovereign citizen activities basically have no correlation with intelligence or political views. It's such a strange category of weirdness.

potato3732842 2y ago
Some people like to portray petty mostly victimless lawlessness as sovereign citizen shenanigans as a means to discredit the reasoning that lead to those people to decide not to follow the law. Not everyone who doesn't get a building permit or a fishing license is a sovereign citizen.
pas 2y ago
By what definition of intelligence? :) It seems like a waste of time at best. But have any sovereign citizen got what they wanted at the end of any kind of proceeding? It seems like a very bad strategy to solve their own selfish problems. (DUI, speeding, not paying taxes, going against gun regulations, etc.) And this strategy is usually coming from being unfortunately so tragically misinformed that they cannot help but reject the boring standard model of reality for a bouquet of conspiracy theories.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  They do "win" sometimes. The rational person just pays the ticket. The sovcit demands a jury trial and, rarely, gets a win when a deal is offered or a witness fails to show. And often just having the proceeding is the win. They get off on being the center of attention. Defending themselves in court is the one time all the important people have to listen to them. They enjoy it.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Do you not have to pay court costs if you’re convicted? That’s a pretty bad gamble if you get convicted maybe 90% of the time?
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the defendant has to pay court costs anyway, win or lose, criminal or civil.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs which generally seems to say that you only have to pay in criminal cases if convicted, or in some states never. To clarify, I'm not talking about the costs of your own attorney, but the cost charged by the court itself. I was asking because in Germany, you generally (only) have to pay if you're convicted, I think.

notjulianjaynes 2y ago

In the past I have considered pursuing litigation pro se because it is very difficult to find an attorney willing to take a public records case on contingency. The stereotype that anyone who represents themselves in court must be a soverign loon or think they're Will Hunting is one reason I did not do so. It is not ideal, but neither is not having access to the justice system due to not having a bunch of money to burn.

dr-detroit 2y ago
[dead]
potato3732842 2y ago
I represented myself pro se in a civil matter that really should have been in small claims but was in superior court because of the remedy being sought by the plaintiff. It went fine, ended in settlement in my favor.

EvanAnderson 2y ago

I would love to know the origin of the "gold fringe" bit, specifically. I remember hearing about that in the 90s.

pc86 2y ago
It has something to do with (incorrectly believing) what laws apply to what court based on the type of flag. This is from memory so may be wrong but I seem to recall it being basically if there is gold fringe, the court is in/part of a different jurisdiction, and the procedures are different, and as such the (actually correct) procedures the judge and prosecutors follow are viewed as incorrect by the SC.
- EvanAnderson 2y ago
  I'm aware of what the belief is (admiralty court, all that hokum...). I'm interested to know the actual origin of the belief-- like who was "patient 0" for coming up with the silliness. It's probably lost to time...
c22 2y ago
https://starspangledflags.com/did-you-know-what-gold-fringe-means-on-the-american-flag https://starspangledflags.com/did-you-know-what-gold-fringe-...
sandworm101 2y ago
https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0 https://youtu.be/i0rL0ukZmf0 https://www.flags.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-fringed-flags/ https://www.flags.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about... >> While some people believe that the fringe has symbolic meaning, its primary purpose is ornamental, giving the flag an air of distinction and honor. Fringed flags are usually displayed on indoor flagpoles, though they may also be used in parades or during other ceremonial presentations. It’s important to note that these flags are not typically flown outside, as the fringe is not designed to withstand outdoor weather conditions. In short: people get confused because they only see the fringe on special occasions or indoors as in courtrooms. It has no meaning.

sandworm101 2y ago

It isnt mental illness. Having incorrect beliefs is different than being insane. But it is a mental heath issue that leads people to adopt these beliefs. Be it flat earth, Qanon or Sovcit, people under stress will reach out to conspiracy theories in an attempt to regain a sense of community and control whilst thier lives are otherwise going off the rails. The beliefs are the symptom, not the disease. With sovcit specifically, there is also a rational layer. Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny. This comes from TV and the news that never explain the nuance of legal practice. They arent insane, just very incorrectly educated. Rosa parks was not insane. She knew she was breaking the law. The rational sovcit thinks themselves the next Rosa Parks, but mistakenly believe that means they cannot be arrested. Rational but wrong.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny pc86 didn’t say sovereign citizenry is mental illness per se. They said it’s indistinguishable from mental illness if pursued all the way to a hearing. At that point, enough flags have been intentionally ignored to validly cross into delusion.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  But i would say they are very distinguishable. The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. The incorrect behavior (speeding) is identical but the overall situation is very distinguishable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines This is a stretch, but possible. It breaks when that man is pulled over, cited, given the opportunity to research or consider another viewpoint, and then shows up in court to plead that case. That’s invisible-spiders levels of delusion, and while it may not be caused by a chemical or physical problem in the brain, it’s indistinguishable from it.