Ah, but the Spratly islands are being hotly contested by Brunei, China, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, just imagine dropping these bozos in the mix.
I just had a self-styled Moorish American appear before me in court a few weeks back. Nearly incoherent.
Bumped.
A SovCitz is among those charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot:
Just adding to the pile:
I know it’s amusing to read and watch the stories from these idiots, but let’s not forget how dangerous they really are. Sovereign Citizens and their ilk have killed. They are wrong but they are dangerously wrong.
p.s. “…did not recognised…”? I do know there are some striking differences between British and American English but that use of the past tense on both the auxiliary and main verb cannot be correct, even in the UK.
It’s not all fun and games with them. There was a story in the paper a week or so ago about a woman in NJ who came to her house and found her key didn’t work. She called a locksmith and while he was picking the lock a man came out brandishing a gun. The locksmith ran away and she called the police. Turned out he was a SC and claimed to be the “true” owner of the house because some ancestor… Eventually it took a SWAT team to dislodge him.
They’ve reached the southern cone!
Yesterday we conducted our constitutionally required once-per-decade census (It was supposed to be in 2020 but you know: pandemic)
One of the guys going house to house for the census found this sign in front of a house:
"
Mister census taker:
This house is the application of living men and women under the jurisdiction of natural law, therefore we do not consent to give information of a private nature and we do not enter into a commercial contract with any corporation such as the corporation “REPUBLICA ARGENTINA et idem sonans, registered in the Securities and
Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) de Washington D.C. (ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF CIK //: 0000914921 SIC //: 8888 y REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA CIK”, and similar or their agents.
We reject your contract proposal without prejudice.
Thank you very much.
UCC 1-308
“Every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellows without his consent” <. Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C.338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
"
I don’t have time to read the whole thing, which is written in 18th Century language and also Legalese, but the quote is not a finding of the court. It is the argument of the plaintiff’s lawyer [‘Counsel for the plaintiff’].
A good case of “Fractally wrong”.
It kind of makes sense in the context of the original case. He’s talking about the time between the dissolution of one government and the formation of a new one. The quote is truncated and loses some meaning - here’s a bit more of it:
By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.
I bolded “there,” because it’s the part that got cut out and is referring to man’s “natural state.” Man’s “state of nature” was a hip idea at the time, so this is almost a pop culture reference, and is simply describing what it means to live in a place without government.
So basically, the argument is that when the colonies declared independence, every person living there was thrust into the ‘state of nature,’ which is a place devoid of a social contract, and that no person could be compelled to accept the new social contract determined by the majority (since ‘majority rule’ is itself a function of government).
What I can’t suss out is the point of the lawsuit itself. I think he’s simply suing to be recognized as a British citizen and therefore be granted standing for a different lawsuit altogether?
But how is that in any way applicable to not wanting to answer questions in a census in a different country that uses a different law philosophy (napoleonic vs common law)?.
Oh, it’s not. Not even one bit. The SovCit movement is based entirely on cherrypicking legalese - relevance be damned - because it sounds good.
“Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” is a hell of a sound bite if your purpose is to declare yourself free to do whatever the hell you please.
I can’t imagine an Argentine official or court is going to give a rat’s ass in a census dispute as to what a North Carolina lawyer said in 1796.
I wish the government would just build a wall around the free thinker’s casa and ripping out the street connections to water, phone and electricity. And no garbage pickup. You want to not participate in society? Fine. Have at it.
They want the benefits of living in a society without the obligations.
Exactly. See post 191.
Exactly:
“Clearly, defendant wishes to have his cake of citizenship and eat it too. He wishes to live in this state, drive on its roads, walk on its paths, be protected by its Constitution, laws, courts and officers, and enjoy all of its rights and blessings, while shirking its responsibilities — including the responsibility to pay his lawful debts. This is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of the law, and this the court will not permit him to do.”
Why not just go all the way, and let them self-declare as an outlaw, in the traditional sense of the word? That seems to be what they actually want.