A lot to pore over there, but “filed a power of attorney document proclaiming his legal authority over the judge” seems like a surefire way to get treated with No Kid Gloves At All when you eventually wind up front of, y’know, a judge.
Yup. I KNOW that the structure of the indentations are easier for SOME. But give me a freaking END IF will ya?
Oh boy, (I’m looking at you Python) you saved 20 lines of code by getting rid of the ‘End whatever’. Like we are running out of space on computers? WTF? It makes it VERY hard to debug.
When I start a routine, I want to end the routine. And not with tab, tab tab. It’s stupid.
When I do Python, I lean on the editor being smart enough to preserve previous-line indentation on the next line so I’m mostly already there if I’m working in the same block.
But it still feels unnatural. Even when I completely understand that’s on me.
“You’re not the boss of me, I’m the boss of you” isn’t usually a strategy employed by anyone over the age of 10.
I quite like python. But this shit, is very irritating.
(C#, Java, Kotlin guy speaking)
I know it is stupid to ask for rationality from the SovCits, but why do they seem so determined to use the actual law when they deem themselves outside of the purview of the law?
I like the Python indentation blocks because it’s quick to see visually where blocks end. Because they end where they’re seen to end. It’s like reading a paragraph. This works with C++ as well, since most programmers indent code the same way. So it’s just eliminating that end punctuation.
I think the answer is that they’ve taken specific steps that placed them outside the law. Sent a “notice” to someplace official, or some other nonsense. They’ve been taught the magic, you see.
Yep. They believe those odd-sounding words are an incantation because they actually don’t understand them. It’s the same reason TV writers use Latin for witch’s spells: it sounds mystical. And these idiots are filled to the brim with awe of the mystical.
Exactly. They use a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right (NOUICOR), which is usually a five to seven page document, outlining the reasons why they can ignore what they wish, including traffic laws and taxes and so on. The following is an example:
http://steven-kirk.com/notice-of-understanding-intent-and-claim-of-right/
That’s from New Zealand, but it’s pretty typical for NOUICORS in the US, Canada, the UK, and other common-law jurisdictions. Anyway, it’s the document they would “file” by sending a copy to the King, the President, the Prime Minister, and anybody else who they feel is in charge, and who can force those meddling cops and tax authorities and so on to leave them alone.
That’s important, because they expect a response. Note the two paragraphs below paragraph 79:
This boils down to, “If I don’t hear from you in ten days, then you have accepted my terms and we have a contract.” Except it isn’t a contract at all. They think it is, but they will find, to their dismay, that it is not.
Anyway, @Stratocaster , this is the notice you were thinking of, and I listed above some of the people they would send it to. Hope this answers your implied question.
It does indeed! Thanks.
Glad to help. If you’d like to know more, you might like to read through Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (link here, 188 page PDF). In brief, it’s Mr. Meads trying to use Freeman-on-the-Land tactics against his wife in a family law matter.
But the judge, Justice Rooke of the Court of Queen’s Bench (as it was then known) in Alberta is having none of it, and proceeds to rip apart every argument that Freemen-on-the-Land/Sovereign Citizens have. The Meads decision has been cited with approval when dealing with Freemen-on-the-Land/Sovereign Citizens in many common-law jurisdictions inside and outside of Canada since then; and though, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been cited in American cases, it is certainly known to American jurists.
Again, glad to help, and you’re very welcome!
I had actually read that before, and that was likely where my vague memory came from. I will reread! Thanks again.
Another sov cit defense shatters into bits (video of the traffic stop is entertaining, including the Alvin-and-the-Chipmunks recitation of his “rights” by the aggrieved driver.
From the article
According to the DA’s office, the deputy stopped the vehicle driven by Newton on Nicholsville Road for not having a license plate. When he approached the vehicle, the defendant would only slightly crack his window and refused to answer questions or identify himself. He then proceeded to claim legal theories that are generally referred to as “sovereign citizen” beliefs.
Only one of those things is illegal
Walton County District Attorney’s office reports that on Tuesday this week, Achim Salathiel Newton was convicted of obstruction of an officer, no tag, no proof of insurance, and failure to display license.
It’s hard to know because YMMV by state, but I see a lot of videos where failure to respect authoritah = obstruction. In some states obstruction require force or the threat of force. I’ve seen people arrested on obstruction for failure to ID when they are not required to and refusing to answer officers’ questions during an investigation.
I don’t support SovCits, but I also don’t support cops violating Constitutional rights
Depends on your state, I guess. What’s the law in your state? In mine, I can be subject to arrest if I can’t show my drivers licence to a police officer making a traffice stop.
That’s the same everywhere.
I don’t think any state requires you to roll down your window all the way as long as you can pass papers to the officer. I love the blatant lies of the cops that they can’t hear if your window isn’t all the way down while:
- They presume you hear their order to roll the window down.
- They are having a dialog with you about other things
And failure to answer questions like where are you headed, have you had anything to drink, etc. is not illegal as these guys will tell you (NSFW language)
OK, but did he pass his licence to the officer? From looking at the video, he was reciting all the standard sovcit nonsense while claming he was wanting to keep the officer out of trouble, and never handed over his licence.
What’s the officer supposed to do in that case?
“In case of SovCit, break glass. Pull out and slam down.”
I fully agree that obstruction is often abused as a catch all, and the whole window all the way down etc is bullshit, although I also don’t see the need to create problems with a group known for excess, but the rest is pretty damn valid in my state. Per the ACLU for Colorado:
Also, if you are driving and you are pulled over for a traffic violation, the officer can require you to show your license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance (but you do not have to answer questions)
Pulled over for no tags (traffic violation), failed to provide license, insurance and registration. Check.
Now of course, I wasn’t there. I also don’t want to watch those videos, because they made me sick. If the SC offered to provide any of the required information and cop didn’t accept them, then there’s a lot more wiggle room. But so far, seems a fair bust.
“Georgia law requires drivers to show their drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance upon request.”