I see a lot like this which is why my post is a reply to Czarcasm. I’m sure that guy feel his misquoting of case law won the day.
But if there’s no contract, then I’m under no obligation to pay the invoice!
It is, at least 99.999% of the time, a one way contract where they personally get what they want but feel they have NO personal responsibility to fulfill their part of the bargain. It is the ultimate in “Internalize profit-Externalize debt.”
No no no. You don’t understand. My magic words work for me not you. Get your supervisor who knows the law.
Do I have to come up with my own magic words? We live in the same state right? But I’m under the sphere of the People’s Republic of Boulder, and you’re in the Republic of Gilead, Colorado Springs District, right?
Your contract does not cover me because, you claim to be the owner of your post, but I only recognize you as its guardian. Your post has its own rights and desires which exist separate to and outside of your rights.
Which brings up the somewhat serious question, is there a left wing or woo equivalent of Sovereign Citizen? I know “left” and “woo” are not the same, and Sov Cit could even be argued as a form of bureaucratic woo.
I guess maybe fear of Wi-Fi, or fake food allergies? That doesn’t feel quite the same. Maybe people who really believe some kind of witch craft, curses, tarot reading, etc?
Use to be. Now in Weld County, South Wyoming
I am the trustee of the Man of the Body Saint Cad™ that wrote the post.
Oh, jeez, just what we need. A Karen SovCit! 
I just watched a bunch of these here, and first, thanks for posting them. Among the many things that amazed me, the similarity of language from all of them was really striking. It’s almost like another form of Scientology.
Hmmm, I spose one might consider some anarcho-syndicalist radical-leftism movements as somewhat similarly motivated by a highly aspirational utopian outlook? (My, that was a nice derangement of epitaphs, wasn’t it? Sorry, there was a sale on four-dollar words recently, three for $0.99, and I may have gone a bit overboard stocking up.)
Honestly, though, SovCits make your average utopian anarcho-syndicalist look like the most razor-witted hyper-pragmatic policy wonk that ever nitpicked another Doper’s case summary. For sheer Dunning-Kruger delusionality, I don’t think they have their equal anywhere on the ideological spectrum.
There was a case here in Canada a few years back. Some Freemen on the Land (A version of SovCits) were pulled over by cops when they were driving in a private parking lot. The cops suspected they had been driving on public roads with their fake license plates, but couldn’t prove it, so no tickets were issued. But at the end of the conversation, the cops warned them that it would be illegal to “take the vehicle on the highway”.
The FotLs then insisted that this meant they could drive their car on surface streets, because “The highway” only meant a limited-access, multilane highway.
Of course, this ignored the fact that, in Ontario, this is the legal definition of “Highway”:
“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)
This is how they come to think they’ve “won”; they ignore the fact that the cops are using a term in its legal sense, and instead the insist that the cops were using it in its colloquial sense.
It’s not like this crowd is noted for its original thinking. They didn’t come up with this nonsense on their own. Some con man taught it to them.
There’s absolutely a community of people out there pushing the same narratives, teaching people the lingos used here. Google “Meads vs. Meads”, for a case in Canada a few years back, in which the judge took the time to comprehensively research and debunk as much of this stuff as he could. Meads has been cited many time in follow-up cases.
Ah, this was fascinating, thank you. The Alberta law review did a retrospective later… it’s long enough that I had to start skimming at some point, but it’s a good summary of what resulted from that decision and its documentation. The associate justice,who wrote that decision retired last December, by the way.
https://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/download/2548/2515/2723
Heh. Your whole post was most enjoyable, but this bit in particular truly cracked me up. Well done.
Has anyone yet heard of these sovcits? It’s a mishmash of sovcit, cult and grift. They call themselves the “Kingdom of Canada” and the leader is a bizarre figure named Romana Didulo. The cult members call themselves “The We the People” and believe that any laws that their (fake) “queen” decrees are invalid do not apply to them. Canada's QAnon 'Queen' forced out of Kamsack, Sask. | CBC News
She has come up on these boards before, I believe in the discussion of the “freedom convoy” or whatever it was called, where truckers in Canada were protesting Covid restrictions and spreading antivax conspiracies. That’s where I first learned of her.
I don’t think they’re at all the same as Sovereign Citizens. Following a “Queen” is the opposite of the personal autonomy that SovCits are claiming.
She’s definitely using a lot of the same terminology and mythology, but in service of promoting herself as Queen of Canada. There’s also a significant religious component to her nonsense. That this clashes with how everyone else uses the SovCit mythology is apparently not a problem.
She did try to graft herself onto the Freedum Convoy grift, but she was her own thing for quite some time prior to that.
So not SovCits, but rather plagiarizing them for another purpose.
I mean, that’s just more pathetic to me.
I’m surprised Canada doesn’t have laws prohibiting false claims of royalty. Does the actual Queen of Canada not care about pretenders?
Off with her head!