Most of them get this stuff from scammers. Convincing people in minor legal/financial trouble that this stuff will get them out of it is itself a little cottage industry scam, and they learn all this jargon from the scammers or the various things the scammers have written.
But the Constitution wasn’t ratified, according to some SC/FOTL types I knew in Montana years ago. (Another claimed that the mere fact that the Constitution was presented for ratification nullified the Articles of Confederation as well. I never did get a firm idea as to what governing document he thought we lived under, and I suspect he didn’t have one either.)
Fruit of the Loom works too.
Fruit of the Loon?
Much better.
The great thing about laws is that there are so many to choose from!
It doesn’t matter since
- They never interpret the AoC correctly anyways.
- They try to apply it in states that never signed it.
I would love to see a cop use #2 on them.
FotL: I don’t need a license or registration. I’m an Article 4 traveler.
Cop: You mean Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation?
FotL: {smiling since they believed they won}. Yes officer.
Cop: Well the Articles of Confederation were never signed by the sovereign State of Nevada so it doesn’t apply here.** Get out of the car.
** I know the FotL response to this is that the AoC was integrated into Federal Law via United States Code. But strangely none of them can cite the USC section. Instead, they just tell the LEO that they should know the law.
Is that kind of like a #6?
My humble advice: Do not argue with them. They have a crazy sense of internal logic which is so crazy that you will get tripped up by arguing with them and when you cannot answer a question, then they “win” because you couldn’t answer their ridiculous question.
One of the issues I have is that you see these guys in court. They are facing a relatively minimal fine but they are arguing with the judge who is about to send them off to jail for contempt. You can’t help but feel for them. You just want to jump up and say, “Pal, please stop. Nobody wants to see you in jail!” and even the judge thinks that so he or she bends over backwards to explain things, to be patient, to let them go on.
Then when later, the SovCit was able to stay out of jail because of the patience of the judge, he posts a fucking YouTube video talking about how his scheme worked and that the judge “knew” that he was powerless to send the SovCit to jail.
I have since come to believe that the only way to stop this nonsense is for maximum punishments for offenses where a frivolous SovCit defense is used and immediate contempt citations.
I disagree. My solution would be for the judge to confirm that they believe they don’t need to follow United States (and state) law, then immediately have them stripped of their citizenship and deported to Camaroon or Venezuala or North Korea.
One of their big hangups/fictions is Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Of course, they just pluck this out of thin air and fail to realize that this is about the structure of the judiciary for the United States of America–the national government. It says nothing about a state government and its judicial system.
So if a SovCit is charged with driving without a license or invalid plates (very typical) they look at this phrase and read it, and all of its clauses to say that the court has no jurisdiction over that “alleged” offense.
The only possible exception, and this is where that comes in, is the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. They then conceive that the only possible reason, as the others are excluded, that this court could even be here is that it is an admiralty or maritime court.
That and the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent based on the Federal Law that admiralty Court flags must have gold fringe.
- If this is an Admiralty Court then the flag has gold fringe.
- This court’s flag has gold fringe.
Therefore it is an Admiralty Court.
Hence the whole association between SovCits and gold fringe on flags.
saint of the clan Cad, Freeman of the Dope
It’s even dumber than that. No such Federal law exists, nor is there any actual association between gold fringes and admiralty courts.
In the 19th Century, a tradition arose in the U.S. Army of flying U.S. flags with a gold fringe as regimental standards. From there, the tradition spread, and some courts and other civilians also began flying/displaying U.S. flags with a gold fringe. Ironically, maritime standards never have a fringe.
Some Admiralty courts display U.S. flags with a gold fringe; others don’t. Some non-Admiralty courts display U.S. flags with a gold fringe; others don’t. There’s no rhyme or reason; it’s just down to the personal preference of whoever picks out the flag used for display in the courtroom. Gold fringes on the flag have absolutely no symbolic significance; it’s just an optional adornment.
The closest there is to anything like a Federal law on gold fringes is an opinion from the U.S. Attorney General in the 1920s that the gold fringe doesn’t violate the U.S. Flag Code, and therefore the flags with gold fringes that were commonly used at the time as military standards were authorized for use.
That’s it.
SovCits go from “military units are authorized to display U.S. flags with a gold fringe” [of course, so is literally everyone else] to “therefore, U.S. flags with a gold fringe are only authorized for use as military standards” [completely untrue], to “therefore, a court displaying a flag with a gold fringe must be a military court” [untrue, plus even if only military courts were authorized to fly gold-fringed U.S. flags, the presence of one might indicate a civilian court is in violation of policy rather than that its secretly a military court], to “Underpants Gnomes”, to “therefore this court must specifically be an Admiralty court”.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a coherent explanation how they get from “military flags have gold fringes” to “gold fringed flags specifically indicate an Admiralty court” as opposed to some other military court. It just seems to be part of their weird obsession with maritime law and legal reasoning based on maritime puns and “the sea of commerce”.
I must disagree with you here. I definitely want to see them go to jail.
Cool. If no one has claimed it yet I’ll take BC!
Why do they use god’s Trade Name?
What do you expect from a country that thinks it has an infinite coastline?
Countries don’t think.
neither do FOTL types.
’ I wasn’t thinking I was traveling in my brains!’