Fogbow

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:16 am Who demands he should not be labeled a "Sovereign Citizen".

Look, I mean, just because he uses in lieu of government ID a t-shirt which reads "Keep your government hands off my sovereignty!", there's no reason to jump to conclusions.

Is "grabbing my sovereignty" how kids refer to it now?

Queen Elisabeth is a citizen of Britain.

They just started the "A Sovereign citizen is impossible" crap becasue they realized what they had been calling themselves was getting a bad reputation. So they pretended it was everyone else that had been wrong in calling them Sovereign Citizens, and not the people who had originally been calling them Sov cits in the first lace. I.E. themselves.

They have largely dropped this line recently as no-one was buying it, and Sov Cits who haven't gotten the memo keep calling themselves "Sovereign Citizens"

I was once told the UK doesn't have "citizens" (a republican concept) but rather "subjects".

I didn't think Europeans started using "citizen" until the French Revolution.

I might be totally wrong, but that's what I learned somewhere.

I think the situation in the UK and other monarchies is that the people are citizens of the country and subjects of the monarch.

One cannot be a citizen of a person, nor can one be a subject of a geographical entity, it's a category error.

Gregg wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:51 am I was once told the UK doesn't have "citizens" (a republican concept) but rather "subjects".

Yabbut the Queen is not a subject.

'Course, I don't mean to objectify her ...



Frater I*I will see me out.

One of the terrible things over time is that resources are lost. We used to have a few websites that gave actual quotes about Subjects and citizens. And of coruse its gone. But there was a court case (in pensilvania I think) that said that Subject and Citizen were the same thing, only one is of a country ruled by a monarch, and they could be used interchangably.

It wanst a supreme court case so the Birthers pretended it wasn't binding on the rest of the country when I constantly brought it up back in the day

Of course the birther blogs are still up.

Ah, thank God for Doctor Conspiracy. His blog has quotations.

https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01 ... ion-pages/

And this is from our old friend US V Wong Kim Ark

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

Yes, absolutely, and if you need that case I can dig it out. I have all that stuff in other formats.

The phrase "natural born subject" was a legal term in Blackstone's Commentaries, the definitive compendium of British law at the time. Every lawyer in the colonies knew what it meant, and everyone born within the realm of England was a natural born subject, with a couple of exceptions that don't apply here.

But we were gonna be a democracy. We weren't gonna have no subjects because we were never going to have a king. We were going to be citizens, not subjects. And citizens have so many more rights, so much more political power. We were never going to use the word 'subjects' in the Constitution, yuk.

So they decided that only a natural born citizen - meaning anyone born within the borders of the United States of America - could be eligible to be president. And Hawaii was admitted to the Union just a few years before Obama was born there, so he was good.

The hilarious thing about the fake imaginary "born on US soil to two US citizens" rule is, has anyone, ever, at any time or in any way, tried to say his father was an American citizen? It was never any kind of a secret. That was part of his life story from the beginning, that his father was only here in the States on a student visa, and divorced his mother when he was 2 years old. EVERYBODY knew that his father was never a citizen of the US.

So why didn't Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General under Shrub, mention it? How come NOBODY thought of the fake imaginary rule until after he won?

And Hawaii was admitted to the Union just a few years before Obama was born there, so he was good.

Even the part of Hawaii in Kenya?

Yep. The whole

Subject and citizen discussion:

Court cases

"The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government."). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: "A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)

Legal treatises:

“The term " citizen," as understood in our [American] law, is precisely analogous to the term " subject" in the common law; and the change of phrase has entirety resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been changed from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the state. Alexander Porter Morse, “A Treatise of Citizenship, by Birth and By Naturalization” (1881) page 164

Gregg wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:51 am I was once told the UK doesn't have "citizens" (a republican concept) but rather "subjects".

The UK now has citizenship.

But, ironically, not natural-born citizenship. Heck, jus soli ended in the UK in 1982.

It continues to amuse me that even lawyers here go down the rabbit hole of birther doom in thinking "natural born citizen" is, as you label these things, a "term of art", despite nowhere being defined or used as such as far as I recall.

Because it isn't. "Citizen", yes, that can be a legal term. "Natural born" is just an English phrase that isn't so widely used the days meaning "born with that nature (condition)". It has that plain meaning.

"Natural born X" just means having been X at birth, like the orange shitgibbon was a natural born ass. One might describe a tall, athletic child as being a "natural born basketball player". Or a child who loves pedantic logic-chopping arguments as a "natural born lawyer."

It's nothing to do with being a native of the country or where one is born or the legal criteria. Its plain and only plausible meaning is that the person was a citizen immediately on entering this world. A citizen at birth.

The US seems to be a special home for a specially large number of natural born ass holes ...

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:11 pm The US seems to be a special home for a specially large number of natural born ass holes ...

IMHO, their prevalence raised the nature vs nurture argument, i.e., you have to be carefully taught to hate.

Oscar Hammerstein said something like that…

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:32 am It continues to amuse me that even lawyers here go down the rabbit hole of birther doom in thinking "natural born citizen" is, as you label these things, a "term of art", despite nowhere being defined or used as such as far as I recall.

Because it isn't. "Citizen", yes, that can be a legal term. "Natural born" is just an English phrase that isn't so widely used the days meaning "born with that nature (condition)". It has that plain meaning.

"Natural born X" just means having been X at birth, like the orange shitgibbon was a natural born ass. One might describe a tall, athletic child as being a "natural born basketball player". Or a child who loves pedantic logic-chopping arguments as a "natural born lawyer."

It's nothing to do with being a native of the country or where one is born or the legal criteria. Its plain and only plausible meaning is that the person was a citizen immediately on entering this world. A citizen at birth.

No, sir.

Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship): William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62

And there is a good deal more discussion about the legal term natural born subject in the Commentaries.

Natural born subject was indeed a legal term of art, and a damned important one. It specified who were British subjects and who were not, without reference to being "born with that nature". This issue went all the way back to 1608 and Calvin's Case.

We argued this to death and buried it, long ago.

And ALL lawyers in the American colonies read Blackstone's Commentaries.

Is Calvin's Case the same as Calvinball?

Vaccine Police dude update.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-02/ ... /100798448

A Victorian man charged with involvement in protests which saw the doors of Old Parliament House set alight has been accused of boasting about assaults on police during a livestream of the events.

Ryan Dean Harder, 40, was arrested by police on his way into Canberra yesterday and charged with assaulting and resisting police, and commissioning arson.

Key points:
A number of protests at Old Parliament House have resulted in several arrests
Ryan Dean Hader is the fourth person to face court over an incident at the historic building in December
He is charged with assaulting and resisting police, and commissioning arson

Anti-government protesters had been gathering in front of Old Parliament House for weeks, before setting fire to the building's doors and causing more than $4 million of damage in December.

Magistrate Robert Cook described the incident as "mob rule and emotional dysregulation".

He said it appeared Mr Harder held a "sovereign citizen" belief and a view that government laws were not legitimate.

He also said he was concerned Mr Harder might reconnect with other protesters.

Foggy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:30 am No, sir.

Not convinced! No, there wasn't any argument that I recall about whether "natural born subject/citizen" is a term of art, there was haggling about its definition premised on it being a term of art. Bad logic.

I don't see anything in that to contradict it referring to who might be classified as a subject at birth.

But I don't care, not one little bit. Definitely Not My Problem.

Got roped in again... this lady is "I, Woman, Angela Christensen". There are some hilarious moments.

Mike at Law Talk does the first two hearings, then Van Balion does the third (so does Mike, so either way).

1: Sovereign Citizen Court Fail #26
63,814 views Oct 19, 2021





2: Sovereign Citizen Court Fail #36
19,874 views Streamed live on Dec 20, 2021







3: Judge Lays Down The Law With Annoying Sovereign Citizen
199,894 views Jan 28, 2022





Next event is docket call on Feb 14th at 10:30am. Happy Valentines Day, Angela. Judge had enough by hearing 3, no more Zoom, she has to be in court or he'll issue a warrant for her arrest.

Judge Aaron J. Gauthier has a YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0L8v ... kWg/videos


Bonus: These two have warrants for their arrest. But all they want to talk about are bonds. They are more interested in their SovCit nonsense then who's going to take care of the kid (although the mother is there).

The Dumbest Sovereign Citizens That I've Ever Seen - Part 2
30,008 views Premiered Feb 4, 2022

I don't know anyone can watch these videos without shaving a few points off their IQ.

bill_g wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:38 am I don't know anyone can watch these videos without shaving a few points off their IQ.

True, but they definitely make you feel a comparative genius.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:56 am

bill_g wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:38 am I don't know anyone can watch these videos without shaving a few points off their IQ.

True, but they definitely make you feel a comparative genius.

The surprising part for me was the Newport couple seemed sober.