# Accepted For Value (A4V) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 26, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369 "2013-05-26T03:08:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Animastryfe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@Animastryfe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Animastryfe)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/41 "2013-05-28T23:58:12Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > It’s a brilloquacious metaphor, silly. “Fruit” as in “benefits” (as in “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree”, e.g.), “of the Loom” as in, the tangled web we weave. > > So Fruit of the Loom means the benefits of the tangled web we weave. > > ETA: Or, having just read **PaulParkhead** ’s post: Aha! I thought I understood, but now I understand even better. It’s not “Fruit of the Loom”. It’s “Fruit of the Loon”. So that must actually mean “excremental output of the crazed moon-struck swamp bird”. Got it. I did a search of ‘brilloquacious’, and this post is the only mention of it on Google. Did you make the word up? ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/42 "2013-05-29T01:19:21Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > [sigh] > > I had to spend a half-hour ploughing through one of those turgid things the other day. Due diligence - even of it looks like nonsense I have to read the whole thing to make sure there’s nothing of substance buried in there that might affect my client. My sympathies. At least I get to tell the website punters “This is claptrap, but ask a lawyer if you want to be sure.” ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/43 "2013-05-29T02:38:51Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Not reported. Either 1999 or 2000, not going to give the place, court or judge name because it would be really embarrassing for the judge. So there’s no evidence it actually happened? ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/44 "2013-05-29T02:51:10Z")
> [@Animastryfe](#): > > I did a search of ‘brilloquacious’, and this post is the only mention of it on Google. Did you make the word up? Well, I might have. I wasn’t sure. But if you say so. BTW: It’s astonishing how fast new posts on SDMB show up in Google searches. Perhaps Google has figured that SDMB is a high-volume site that needs, and is worthy of, very close watching for new material? If so, does this mean that Google is crawling SDMB with very frequent regularity, perhaps significantly contributing to the SDMB slow-downs and search problems? Hmmmmm… I think I’m going to post this to one of those current ATMB threads too . . . Watch for it in Google, Real Soon Now! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/45 "2013-05-29T04:16:37Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So there’s no evidence it actually happened? May I ask what’s the point of your post? It seems **Muffin** was telling an interesting anecdote, not citing a point of law. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/46 "2013-05-29T04:50:54Z")
While we have a legal mind or two: Am I correct in concluding that a “Sovereign Citizen” is a legal impossibility? One is either sovereign or a citizen of a sovereign entity, but not both? Were Queen Elizabeth II (who is a sovereign) were to abdicate, _then_ she would become a citizen of the UK. Is that statement correct? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/47 "2013-05-29T04:55:44Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > May I ask what’s the point of your post? It seems **Muffin** was telling an interesting anecdote, not citing a point of law. My… _point_? That’s a new one on me, let me tell you. Wondering about legal record-keeping, I suppose it would be called. As I previously understood it, anyway, there are usually stenographers in courtrooms who keep records. As a tampon isn’t a word, however, it would be interesting to see how a stenographer would record its appearance in the courtroom and subsequent use as a weapon. I also wonder if the stenographer would have bothered to record the fact the woman stuck her hand down her pants, which could easily lead off into a discussion of just how non-normative behavior has to be in order to make it into the court record. So, no, no _real_ point _as such_. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/48 "2013-05-29T09:47:57Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here’s a little gem that gives some insight into their thought: > > [ACCEPT FOR VALUE](http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/a4v.htm) I had to stop. My brain was hurting. That there is some detailed, extensive, closely argued, prime, A-grade whargarble, no doubt about it. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/49 "2013-05-29T10:00:30Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > My… _point_? That’s a new one on me, let me tell you. > > Wondering about legal record-keeping, I suppose it would be called. As I previously understood it, anyway, there are usually stenographers in courtrooms who keep records. As a tampon isn’t a word, however, it would be interesting to see how a stenographer would record its appearance in the courtroom and subsequent use as a weapon. I also wonder if the stenographer would have bothered to record the fact the woman stuck her hand down her pants, which could easily lead off into a discussion of just how non-normative behavior has to be in order to make it into the court record. > > So, no, no _real_ point _as such_. Why? It doesn’t seem like a case was being heard at the time, so I don’t see how it would have been reported.. ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/50 "2013-05-29T10:59:14Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I had to stop. My brain was hurting. That there is some detailed, extensive, closely argued, prime, A-grade whargarble, no doubt about it. I can’t escape the sense that there are lots of people who don’t have the knack of composing a grammatically cromulent sentence, but can recognise one when they see it. And a proportion of those people use the fact that someone can compose a proper sentence as a heuristic measure of the reliability of the content of the sentence. Whoever wrote the “law notes” on the site that gave you brain conniptions can write a sentence. But he can’t understand contract law for shit. (Hiring a painter is an adhesion contract?) He writes very stupid things with an air of great clarity, creating the illusion that his bald assertion of the idiotic idea that traffic tickets are an adhesion contract seems to flow naturally from his earlier discussion. He is that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep, who persuades the other sheep that they can fly. [http://www.montypython.net/scripts/flysheep.php](http://www.montypython.net/scripts/flysheep.php) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/51 "2013-05-29T11:13:54Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > May I ask what’s the point of your post? It seems **Muffin** was telling an interesting anecdote, not citing a point of law. Because it sounds like he made it up. It’s supposedly something that happened in a court of law—a public place—in front of people, indeed, people representing the state. If he knows a date, place, and name of person involved, he should give it up. I don’t buy that this would be “embarrassing to the judge.” It’s embarrassing to the person who did it. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/52 "2013-05-29T11:21:12Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If he knows a date, place, and name of person involved, he should give it up. I don’t buy that this would be “embarrassing to the judge.” “Should give it up.” Last I heard I have no duty to you what so ever. What you “buy” is utterly irrelevant. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/53 "2013-05-29T12:05:27Z")
I didn’t claim any legal obligation on your part. It’s simply a question of credibility. If something happened in open court, it’s not plausible that it is some big secret. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/54 "2013-05-29T13:50:11Z")
Lots of things happen in open court that never get reported in the papers, but become well-known among the local bar, police and others who are in court regularly. Nor would a court stenographer mention the episode in the transcript. A transcript is to record what is spoken in court, not to record the actions of individuals in court. If someone is assaulted in court, the transcript doesn’t show it unless someone like the judge or a lawyer says it’s happening. That’s why in tv shows and movies, if a witness is asked to identify the assailant and points at the accused without saying anything, the lawyer will say, “I would like the record to show that the witness has pointed at the accused.” That’s a statement by a lawyer in the course of examining a witness, and therefore will be recorded. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/55 "2013-05-29T13:59:44Z")
I didn’t say that everything in court must appear on the official record. I’m saying that if it happened in open court, it was a public event and details regarding it are not confidential and shouldn’t be subject to secrecy to spare people’s feelings. Furthermore, if this person was charged with assault, then the details of the accusation, along with the name of the judge, must also be a public record. Someone should be able to look it up to see whether such a charge was made at that time and place. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/56 "2013-05-29T14:11:23Z")
Look it up where? There’s no general database of all criminal charges in Canada. You need to know the location and the court, and the name of the accused. As well, in Canada, the information that lays a charge is pretty bare-bones. A common assault charge typically simply says that the accused committed a physical assault on an individual. The details of the assault are not normally laid out in full. At trial, if the accused pled out, the facts of the assault would have been read into the record, and recorded by the court stenographer, but the stenographer’s typed record is only transcribed into readable form if needed for an appeal. If the accused pled out, there would not be an appeal. Even if there were a contested trial, the decision of the Court would normally be an oral one, not a written one - that’s how common assault charges are normally dealt with, since the facts aren’t usually complex, nor are there major questions of law. Cases normally only get reported if the judge reserves decision and gives a written decision. And, there would not be a transcript of the court stenographer’s typing unless the matter went on appeal, which is rare for non-complex common assaults. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/57 "2013-05-29T14:23:35Z")
The charge sheet would not state the location of the assault and the victim’s name and attach the written report of the police officer or bailiff entering the charge? When I was a crime reporter, I would go to the police station and the sheriffs office and the county prosecutor’s every morning and read every single police report, regardless of whether any charge was made, and every single indictment. If someone had thrown a tampon at a judge, it would be right there on the front counter of the sheriff’s office – time, date, location, the name of the accused, the name, age, and home address if the victim, names of witnesses, and a handwritten narrative by the bailiff or deputy describing what he saw and what witnesses told him. And the name and signature of the reporting deputy. If it had gone straight to the prosecutor’s office, there would be a bill of information or a grand jury indictment not only listing the statute violated, but also a brief narrative giving the same details. You can bet to this day that there would be a public record somewhere that said “Accused Jane Smith threw a soiled tampon and hit Judge Brown in the head. Smith was charged with simple assault.” ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/58 "2013-05-29T15:03:38Z")
Knock yourself out, Ace. You might first want to re-read what Spoons has told you about the procedure here before you start your search. If you have further questions, here’s a toll free number for you to call: 1-800-518-7901. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/59 "2013-05-29T15:42:44Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > My… _point_? That’s a new one on me, let me tell you. > > … > > So, no, no _real_ point _as such_. Why? > [@Acsenray](#): > > Because it sounds like he made it up. It’s supposedly something that happened in a court of law—a public place—in front of people, indeed, people representing the state. If he knows a date, place, and name of person involved, he should give it up. I don’t buy that this would be “embarrassing to the judge.” It’s embarrassing to the person who did it. **Moderator Instructions** **Derleth** and **Acsenray** , I made my remark because I didn’t want to see this devolve into a pointless hijack over a trivial anecdote. Drop this now. Let’s get back to the subject of the thread. Anyone with questions about the legal issues involved in this side issue can start a new thread. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369/60 "2013-05-29T17:05:55Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > While we have a legal mind or two: > > Am I correct in concluding that a “Sovereign Citizen” is a legal impossibility? > > One is either sovereign or a citizen of a sovereign entity, but not both? > > Were Queen Elizabeth II (who is a sovereign) were to abdicate, _then_ she would become a citizen of the UK. > Is that statement correct? Returning to our _moutons_: It’s a legal impossibility under commonly understood legal and constitutional principles. However, for those who have drunk the SovCit kool-aid, it’s not. As best I can tell, they believe that all citizens are sovereigns, and that no law applies to them unless they personally agree to that law - all law is solely a form of contract to them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accepted-for-value-a4v/659369.md?page=4)