That’s only because she was talking to Fry. Anyone would look less crazy in comparison to him.
Yeah, my first reaction is “gold fringed gold fringe on every possible surface!”
But really thinking about it, I want the judge to be an expert on every aspect of SovCit/FotL legal theory, and every one of their “legal theories” should be treated to a complete and thorough debunking.
I don’t want them to have any reason to leave the courthouse feeling fucked over, I want them to leave the courthouse broken.
CMC fnord!
Then the judge would do well to find American cases to fit the boxes of Meads.
How about an audience of gold fringed, Sergeant Pepper, Micheal Jackson clones?
I want to know what this Fry would do if released: would he become a pizza delivery boy who accidentally falls into a suspended-animation chamber and be revived in the year 3000?
I don’t think it will make any difference, for they are True Believers. A court could no more get them to give up their beliefs than a court could get a Born Again BABY JAYSUS AAAAMEN!!! to give up his beliefs, and an integral part of their beliefs is that the the government, its laws and its courts do not apply to them, so regardless of what the court does, I doubt if any if them will change their tune.
As much as I’d like to see that, it ain’t going to happen. There people are crazy, not uninformed.
I dunno if I entirely like this . . . it sets a bad precedent for that day coming soon when armed leftists challenge the state’s authority.
Well, it could happen . . .
Well, armed leftists would be doing the same thing that got the Bundyites in trouble, so I don’t think there’s a problem with the precedent.
We’d bring our own sex toys and lube.
And snacks and marijuana.
Tie dye tarps…
Why have them give up their beliefs? When they’re being dragged, in chains, from the courthouse, the bailiff could helpfully explain that “I hear you complaining, but I don’t believe the government has the authority to punish me for doing this.”
This. These people are essentially living in the Matrix. They believe the government has been replaced with an illegal corporation that they are fighting against. Being swept up by it is the result of trying to expose the truth. When they bring their side up in court, it doesn’t matter what response they get, it will be exactly what they’d expect an illegal government court to say. There won’t be any reasoning with them.
Plus also there is a massive amount of Dunning Kruger going on here. If they were people who were capable of understanding anything complicated, they wouldn’t be in their current mess in the first place. Even assuming the judgement was (what you or I would consider to be) a masterpiece of simplicity and persuasion they just wouldn’t understand how the judge’s facts had any more plausibility than their own or how the judge’s reasoning was any more bulletproof than their own.
Question: Can anyone in the jurisprudence business (judges? lawyers? who else?) tell me how widely noted and studied, and how influential, the Meads case has been? Both across Canada and across the United States?
I know, of course, that Meads is a Canada case and has no legal bearing in the United States. But Justice Rooke’s exhaustive study and analysis of the whole SovCit/FotL movement, and his massive dissertation and debunking on the subject, are thoroughly … well, thorough. And a fun read too, if you can slog through all 170-some pages of it. (And it does touch on American law too, since those SovCit/FotL types, even in Canada, are so fond of citing American law in their cases – most commonly the Uniform Commercial Code, with a heavy dose of American Constitution and their notions of gold-fringed Maritime law mixed in.)
I think I’ve seen it mentioned that jurists throughout North America have taken note of Rooke’s monumental study. (Or is that just someone’s wishful thinking?) Anybody here know if that’s so?
It is the Bible for this sort of stuff in Canada, where [it has been applied from sea to shining sea](http://www.canlii.org/en/#search/origin1=/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html&nquery1=2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)&linkedNoteup=). The only places it has not been reported as being applied yet is the arctic and a potato patch in the Atlantic. The British Columbia Law Society that governs lawyers there alerted it’s members through apractice tips article referring to Meads, and Alberta tightened up its law concerning notaries and commissioners, with Meads being pointed out by the Alberta Law Society. I don’t have a cite for it, but I recall the Law Society of Upper Canada (i.e. Ontario) referencing Meads when alerting lawyers in the province to the Freemen on the Land/Sovereign Citizen problem, and a Superior Court Judge in Ontario discussed it at a conference I was at a couple of years back (which came in handy as a little while later I ended up with one of these nutters as a client). Meads has received wide coverage in the Canadian legal field by being discussed in articles published in Canadian Lawyer and Law Times. I think that where it is useful is in articulating the various types of nuttiness – just find the check-box(es) that most closely match the symptoms of the nutter at hand, and Bob’s your uncle.
That guy should get a Nobel prize for something, for that tour de force.
Muffin: Can you tell us a little about that case of yours with the nutter?
They will feel fucked over no matter what. And if they don’t have fringe, they’ll make up some new wild theory.