Lol! xD
I imagine it can be even more confusing considering their orange color and flag with no orange color in it. ^^
Cool. Didn’t know that!
You probably weren’t looking at the screen carefully - the official name of South Africa is the Republic of S A. RSA.
Multiple names for the same country through different languages isn’t new or unique. Those in the country some call Holland (which indeed is the name of provinces and not the whole) call it Nederlands - “low lands” or “low country”. Same meaning when translated to French - “Pays Bas”. Someone from there, in their language, is a Nederlander, not Dutch. Language’s name= Nederlands. Not Dutch. Everyone is very familiar with the variations and untroubled by them.
“Germany” in German is Deuschland - Land of the Teutons. In Romance languages it’s a form of Allemania - Allemagne = Land of the Alemany, a different tribe. Germania is the place of yet a third tribe.
Austria in German (its language) is Oesterreich or Eastern Nation/Empire. Yet in English it’s “Austria”, taken not from the German form but from the French Autriche, a transliteration.
Same is true of cities in Europe. The name in one language can be completely different and unrecognizable from its name in another.
Carry on.
It was the “Union of South Africa” from 1910 to 1961. I don’t know whether that was commonly abbreviated to “USA”. My impression is that the usual abbreviation was simply “the Union”.
Nederland, I believe.
An in Finnish Germany is called Saksa, referring to the Saxons, yet another Germanic tribe.
You don’t hear it quite so often these days, but English also has the term “The Low Countries,” which refers to the Netherlands and Belgium collectively (and also occasionally to Luxembourg).
In Spanish is Holanda, or, informally, Paises Bajos (Low Countries).
I am not disputing what you say and I am not eager to join the tin-foil hat brigade and the few videos I have seen of this stuff show people who I believe are simultaneously deluded and @$$holes.
BUT- it doesn’t take too many occasions of seeing lawyers get people or corporations off on technicalities before some people wonder whether they can somehow do the same thing. It doesn’t make a difference that most of those cases are fictional (they are probably MORE influential for being fictional). These people are simply reaching for the same things that they see the wealthy and privileged have (albeit in a childish and clumsy way). IIRC, their methods were actually somewhat efficcacious a decade or two ago, when their offbeat bullying tactics caught unprepared county clerks off guard.
It happens far more often than what people think. Especially in systems not based on common law. Not so long ago there was a law that was hastily rewritten for new realities on the road. Because of a technicality police refused to catch speeders and no speeders could get prosecuted.
One thing that’s red hot nowdays in Europé is is synthetic drugs. So people keep changing the molecules just a little or even the ingredients and they can’t get to them.
Besides wording is a big thing on the international scale now. A lot of the bickering about the Minsk 2 peace process right now is what exactly was signed and what is being followed.
The defense of war criminals in Hague is often based on semantics and whether or not a terminology is applicable or not.
That’s true of the defense of any crime, though. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that the definition of a crime does not apply to what you actually did. Or what you can be proven to have done.
No, I’m talking about the semantics of things. I mean they often go through the history of ethnic conflict, of laws, of when they were created, on who they are applicable, of how one can unsubscribe to those laws, etc.
Carlos the Jackal and Vojislav Seselj are fantastic in this regard. The later got him self acquitted.
So this bollox about you not being able to argue the details about things is just that, bollox. It’s just that ordinary people tend to do it so rarely that they are taken for a joke. And common law also is more about general application than the detail. So bringing up stuff like “sovereign citizen” in the US is probably a bad place.
Where and when did this happen?
I’ll PM you.
I don’t know why you couldn’t post it here, but this is the link you PMed me, with instructions to use Google Translate from Swedish to English.
Who are they? What laws of what countries are you talking about?
You’re throwing around a lot of statements that we can’t understand and you won’t back up with specifics. How can we discuss those?
According to the Wikipedia article about him, his case was dismissed because of delays. That is not an acquittal in any law I am aware of.
The law is detail and technicalities and wording. Always has been. It has never been about magic words, though. That’s what sovereign citizens believe and that’s what the blogwriter you asked about believes. Once the magic words theory is revealed, anything else said - anything - can be safely dismissed. I’m pretty sure this is a universal for any type of law anywhere.
They don’t seem to understand the different between interpreting the law and thinking they have a magic formula for avoiding it. The vast majority of people do understand this. It’s fundamental to any knowledge. Not understanding cannot be defended in any way. It’s not simply a mistake or simple ignorance. It’s bad thinking. That’s always fatal.
Yes, thanks for the correction.
I don’t know what you’re talking about when you speak about magic words. Never Heard about that. What I am telling you is that you indeed can beat a court of law using as you said technicalities and wording.
How say beating a case because of “wording” contrasts with beating a case with “magical wording” is something you need to explain to me.
Ah I just didn’t want to out my nationality. So what are you reflections on it?
Why did you want me to Post it or PM you with it?
Jagshemash. I like you. I like sex. Is nice.