Derleth. Post #18.
What are magical phrases in post 18?
Nobody can “opt out” of a law but if they can find some technicality that excludes them (their actions) then they are obviously not affected by it. Common sense, no?
- Posting a link from a Swedish site is not an admission that one is from Sweden, and if you hadn’t just claimed it as your nationality I’m pretty sure most would never had made that connection. People post links from other countries all the time without being accused of coming from those countries.
- I didn’t ask for a “PM” at all-I just wanted an example of what you said happened. Since we weren’t having a private conversation, I didn’t think the link you provided should be private.
You ask before you post PM’s, learn some freaking netiquette.
Anyway will you actually contribute something now that you have your link public or not?
um, it’s bad form to just show up on a message board and start bossing people around.
Unless that “technicality” has already passed through the court system, then no, it isn’t common sense-it’s just wishful thinking fueled by a desire to cheat the system.
Lol that’s like saying “Well fine you can drink that glass of juice unless I already drank it”.
Well obviously, jesus fucking christ lol.
Sovereign citizens literally think they can opt out of a law. The blogger you cited as being “interesting” thinks that saying that you live in the United States instead of the United States of America is a viable technical reading of the law that will let you opt out.
Maybe no such minds live in Sweden but here in the U.S. we have to deal with them.
Let me make this even simpler: In the link you provided in the OP, the author misuses some words, uses secondary definitions of others, says things that are historically untrue and waves away over two hundred years of legal precedent, and he thinks this is allowed because of a supposed “glitch” between the terms “United States” and “United States of America”.
To put it bluntly, like so many of his ilk, he thinks that he has found a “cheat code”.
That’s because he’s wrong on the facts not wrong on the premise. Obviously if the US was a different place than the USA he could opt out.
You don’t have to make it simpler. I’m just mocking your inability to express yourself coherently despite being a native English speaker
What you just said prior to this has nothing to do with what you just said. Unless someone actually tried to drive the issue through to the supreme court and lost.
And if a hamster were a horse you could saddle up and ride off into the sunset. So? He is still 100% wrong.
Of course he is, who cares? We established this on post 5 or something. We are talking about judicial procedure now.
In which country?
It has in fact been taken to the courts of several countries. I found the legal opinion given in that cite far more interesting than the blog post.
Are you stupid or something?
Oh I missed that. Sweet find.
I’ll bite a bit and play the devils advocate. How is it the judges place to argue that he as an objective arbitrary should act as and encourage other judges like him to defeat such litigants?
Doesn’t this suggest bias?
Ah nevermind. He explains that knowledge of the law defeats them. Not that they should attempt to defeat them. Good!
No, I am not. As you said
Discussing legal precedent involving just the laws of this country can get hot and heavy conversation-wise, but throwing in the legal precedents of other countries would just make this an unholy mess of a thread.
Perhaps this thread is in the wrong forum then cause it’s not my intention that it be serious at all. I’ll withdraw.