Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Sovcit nutz

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
User avatar
roadscholar
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
Contact:

Sovcit nutz

#776

Post by roadscholar »

Foggy wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:17 am
roadscholar wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:32 pm Believing-- unswervingly, absolutely-- in things for which there is no evidence, much less proof, used to be considered mental illness good understanding of the religion of your society.
Fixed it a little bit. What is faith, if not belief without evidence?
There is a difference, though.

Religious faith concerns things that can’t be proven… what happens after we die, is there some karmic leveling? That sort of thing.

The lunacy comes in when people disregard readily-available evidence and facts for which there is an overwhelming consensus.

That strikes me as far more troubling.
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#777

Post by arayder »

Jerry Mander wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:00 pm The thing I wonder with all these so-called “Sovereign Citizen” types going to court is: when has this bullsh*t ever worked in a court or anywhere? I mean seriously. There is a steady track record of failure for this nonsense. Why do these people think it’ll work for them, ever? :crazy:
I suspect that to some of these "believers" there is thought to be a sort of power in their methods.

This imagined power, I think, is invented in order to compensate for the power the authority and confidence the "believers" lack in the real world.

Once they go down the rabbit hole of believing that they have secret knowledge that gives them power the subsequent losses in the real world (i.e. courts, banks, jobs etc) are more easily seen as affirmations of their beliefs.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Sovcit nutz

#778

Post by northland10 »

arayder wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:25 pm
Jerry Mander wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:00 pm The thing I wonder with all these so-called “Sovereign Citizen” types going to court is: when has this bullsh*t ever worked in a court or anywhere? I mean seriously. There is a steady track record of failure for this nonsense. Why do these people think it’ll work for them, ever? :crazy:
I suspect that to some of these "believers" there is thought to be a sort of power in their methods.

This imagined power, I think, is invented in order to compensate for the power the authority and confidence the "believers" lack in the real world.

Once they go down the rabbit hole of believing that they have secret knowledge that gives them power the subsequent losses in the real world (i.e. courts, banks, jobs etc) are more easily seen as affirmations of their beliefs.
The issue here is not new. As said in 2 Timothy 4
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
When reality does not provide what you want, find somebody who can give a new reality.
101010 :towel:
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#779

Post by arayder »

Some people get into this sovcit stuff because they think it may get them out of a jam.

Some are ideologically disposed to using the sovcit method.

Some folks get duped into using sovcit voodoo.

Some are guru/scammers who are forced to use the method when they get in trouble or else be branded a fake.

This Brooks guy is just nutty.
Baidn
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:43 am

Sovcit nutz

#780

Post by Baidn »

arayder wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:25 pm
Jerry Mander wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:00 pm The thing I wonder with all these so-called “Sovereign Citizen” types going to court is: when has this bullsh*t ever worked in a court or anywhere? I mean seriously. There is a steady track record of failure for this nonsense. Why do these people think it’ll work for them, ever? :crazy:
I suspect that to some of these "believers" there is thought to be a sort of power in their methods.

This imagined power, I think, is invented in order to compensate for the power the authority and confidence the "believers" lack in the real world.

Once they go down the rabbit hole of believing that they have secret knowledge that gives them power the subsequent losses in the real world (i.e. courts, banks, jobs etc) are more easily seen as affirmations of their beliefs.
Also worth noting that many of the true believers think it HAS worked before. Almost every single one of the major sovcit grifters will insist that they've won court cases repeatedly with their special nonsense. They're lying of course but know full well the faithful won't check; this also goes a long way towards explaining why they make such volatile angry outburst when called out on public forums such as YouTube where the faithful might stumble upon accurate information showing how useless it is.
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#781

Post by arayder »

Baidn wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:35 pm
arayder wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:25 pm
Jerry Mander wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:00 pm The thing I wonder with all these so-called “Sovereign Citizen” types going to court is: when has this bullsh*t ever worked in a court or anywhere? I mean seriously. There is a steady track record of failure for this nonsense. Why do these people think it’ll work for them, ever? :crazy:
I suspect that to some of these "believers" there is thought to be a sort of power in their methods.

This imagined power, I think, is invented in order to compensate for the power the authority and confidence the "believers" lack in the real world.

Once they go down the rabbit hole of believing that they have secret knowledge that gives them power the subsequent losses in the real world (i.e. courts, banks, jobs etc) are more easily seen as affirmations of their beliefs.
Also worth noting that many of the true believers think it HAS worked before. Almost every single one of the major sovcit grifters will insist that they've won court cases repeatedly with their special nonsense. They're lying of course but know full well the faithful won't check; this also goes a long way towards explaining why they make such volatile angry outburst when called out on public forums such as YouTube where the faithful might stumble upon accurate information showing how useless it is.
Years and years ago Russ Porisky, the noted Canadian anti-taxer, beat a tax evasion rap due to prosecutorial error. The prosecutor claimed that Russ had not paid his taxes for a given year but failed to produce records for the last two months of the year. The judge noted that it wasn't established that Russ hadn't paid his taxes for the year in the last few weeks of the year and let Russ walk.

The ruling made it clear that the judge wassn't endorsing Porisky's tax avoidance plan, but was simply letting him go on a prosecutorial error.

Russ started crowing that the court was just sayvng face and he'd proved his method worked!

This was waaaaay back in the day when Russ had a phone number you could call. So I called him. When I suggested that he'd luckily beat the rap on a technicality he went off and started shouting that he'd proved his method and that I was a government dupe.

I gained an appreciation for just how full of beans these gurus can be.

As we all know about Porisky's jailing and fines upon being tried again in subsequent years.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Sovcit nutz

#782

Post by Luke »

Y'all probably know all about this maniac Darrell Brooks, but just stumbled on it from a post on Twitter. This guy Brooks keeps doing SovCit trash, he keeps asking about the "Plaintiff", "jurisdiction", does the stupid name thing, and other BS. There's a GOLD FRINGE FLAG in the courtroom, maybe he didn't see it because it didn't mention it. Major error for Darrell.

Thought it was interesting the prosecutor brought up a case United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 7th Circuit from 2011. Apparently, on page 767 there's a discussion of how (obviously) there's no merit to any of this nonsense. They said it had "no conceivable validity in American law". Didn't get a chance to look it up but sounds like a good case to have handy with these losers.

Lots of this was just going around with SovCit Brooks, putting him in another courtroom, bringing him back, he got disruptive, moved him away again, rinse and repeat. The two witnesses were good, the friend of Darrell's ex was funny.

Watch Live: WI v. Darrell Brooks - Waukesha Parade Defendant Trial Day One


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Sovcit nutz

#783

Post by noblepa »

northland10 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:56 pm When reality does not provide what you want, find somebody who can give a new reality.

Remember Adam Savage on "Mythbusters"? He used to sometimes wear a t-shirt on the show that said "I reject your reality and substitute my own". I think he was being facetious, but that shirt seems to succinctly sum up the sovcits' way of thinking.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Sovcit nutz

#784

Post by noblepa »

orlylicious wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:05 am Y'all probably know all about this maniac Darrell Brooks, but just stumbled on it from a post on Twitter. This guy Brooks keeps doing SovCit trash, he keeps asking about the "Plaintiff", "jurisdiction", does the stupid name thing, and other BS. There's a GOLD FRINGE FLAG in the courtroom, maybe he didn't see it because it didn't mention it. Major error for Darrell.

Thought it was interesting the prosecutor brought up a case United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 7th Circuit from 2011. Apparently, on page 767 there's a discussion of how (obviously) there's no merit to any of this nonsense. They said it had "no conceivable validity in American law". Didn't get a chance to look it up but sounds like a good case to have handy with these losers.

Lots of this was just going around with SovCit Brooks, putting him in another courtroom, bringing him back, he got disruptive, moved him away again, rinse and repeat. The two witnesses were good, the friend of Darrell's ex was funny.

Watch Live: WI v. Darrell Brooks - Waukesha Parade Defendant Trial Day One


I posted about this moron a couple of days ago. He was asking for a written copy of the judge's oath and kept asking her name.

During the hearing in which she granted him permission to defend himself, the judge was explaining the ramifications and potential pitfalls of a pro se defense. He kept talking over her, saying "I do not understand". When I heard that, I turned to my wife and said "this guy's a sovereign citizen".

He doesn't seem to have the nonsense down pat, as yet. I, too, noticed that he failed to bring up the fringed "Admiralty" flag. Doesn't he know that that would be an immediate "Get out of jail, free" card?

Unless I missed it, he doesn't seem to have brought up the distinction between the legal fiction DARRELL BROOKS and the living man Darrel Brooks. Doesn't he know that it was legal fiction DARRELL BROOKS driving the car that day and that he, the living man Darrel Brooks, can not be held responsible for the actions of the legal fiction?

Future sovcits who end up in court may be asked why they believe the magic will work for them, when it didn't work for our Mr. Brooks. The answer, of course will be "he didn't do/say everything in exactly the proper way".
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#785

Post by arayder »

It's not usual to hear a sovcit/freeman guru harp on and on about personal responsibility as a way of dismissing the need for government and courts.

But they are quiet as church mice when one of their own uses their methods in an attempt to avoid responsibility for killing 6 people and injuring 60 others by running them over with his car.
User avatar
Arthurwankspittle
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:34 am

Sovcit nutz

#786

Post by Arthurwankspittle »

I'm following this and note the following:
He doesn't have a 100% record of saying "I don't understand" he's missed the odd one.
He refers to himself as the "alleged defendant" and tries to evade use of his name at times especially by witnesses.
He has spent time asking every witness were they were subpoenaed from and things like have they seen the state of WI in a SovCit attempt to extrapolate that there isn't a victim. This results in a loop of Brooks questioning a witness, prosecution objection, sustained, Brooks asking similar question, until the judge tells him to knock it off or she invokes 906.11(? think that's right) and ends his cross examination.
He seems to be attempting to make a defense out of the possibility it wasn't him in the SUV, there could have been others in the SUV, and there could have been other similar SUVs. It is a reasonable attempt at a defense, unfortunately the last prosecution witness was a senior cop who testified that Books's SUV hit him and the prosecution slapped up a video still clearly showing Brooks at the wheel at the point he was shoving past the witness.
Prosecution have been letting a lot of stuff slide where they could have jumped in. They are letting Brooks annoy the jury and "not interrupting an enemy when he's making a mistake"

Case resumes Monday with Brooks cross examination of this witness. I can't see it going well. The witness at the time was dressed in a hi-vis and was controlling traffic for the parade. Unfortunately for Brooks he is a veteran detective with 20 years service and this ain't his first rodeo.

I don't know how big or close this town is but I do fear someone may take one for the team/town and 2nd amendment Brooks because reasons....
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Sovcit nutz

#787

Post by Luke »

The objection/sustained/repeat waste of time about the "plaintiff" is really annoying. How this murderer thinks it's going to help in any way is delusional. He's still on about subject matter jurisdiction, judicial determination, and any other trash he heard at YouTube U. Like with frauditors, the sheer volume of disinformation about this is worrying, people are being lied to and there isn't a way to balance it. Frauditors should face much stiffer penalties. Back to Brooks -- the state is moving through the case quickly. Now Darrell has to have subpoenas and a witness list by Monday.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#788

Post by arayder »

Arthurwankspittle wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:21 am . . .He seems to be attempting to make a defense out of the possibility it wasn't him in the SUV, there could have been others in the SUV, and there could have been other similar SUVs. . .
If Brooks goes all sovcit and argues that it was his strawman in the SUV he runs the risk of getting to a place where the jury hates his guts. That is not a good place to be.
They [the prosecution] are letting Brooks annoy the jury and "not interrupting an enemy when he's making a mistake"
I have heard of defense attorneys looking at jurors during trials and realizing that most of them are glaring at the defendant as if they'd just as soon end the matter right then and there. Then the defense decides to cop a plea and get a lesser term for the defendant who is about to get poleaxed by the jury.

Brooks has no such help.
User avatar
Arthurwankspittle
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:34 am

Sovcit nutz

#789

Post by Arthurwankspittle »

orlylicious wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:19 am Now Darrell has to have subpoenas and a witness list by Monday.
Which I can't see happening. I also suspect ignoring a subpoena written by Brooks would be defendable.
jemcanada2
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:12 am

Sovcit nutz

#790

Post by jemcanada2 »

I’ve seen some sovcit idiots who think that if you tell the court that you understand then you are accepting their jurisdiction. That you stand under them and their jurisdiction. :crazy: :crazy:
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#791

Post by arayder »

Baidn wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:35 pm Also worth noting that many of the true believers think it HAS worked before. Almost every single one of the major sovcit grifters will insist that they've won court cases repeatedly with their special nonsense. They're lying of course but know full well the faithful won't check; this also goes a long way towards explaining why they make such volatile angry outburst when called out on public forums such as YouTube where the faithful might stumble upon accurate information showing how useless it is.
jemcanada2 wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:31 am I’ve seen some sovcit idiots who think that if you tell the court that you understand then you are accepting their jurisdiction. That you stand under them and their jurisdiction. :crazy: :crazy:
I have heard of a couple of sovcit/freeman gurus admitting that none of their games really work, but that they advocate their use because the methods mess with the judges, cause delays and generally PO authority figures.

As I watch Brooks constantly interrupting I get the felling he's getting off on upsetting the judge, who seems to be exasperated by his antics.

There are at least a couple of classic YouTubes out there (I'll try to find them) of judges who take all this sovcit stuff in perfect stride and end up shutting down the sovcit yacky mouth in front of them.
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Sovcit nutz

#792

Post by sad-cafe »

what is the difference between Pro Se and Pro Per
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Sovcit nutz

#793

Post by Suranis »

You speak "properly" not "prosely."

Yes, this shit is why I'm single.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6693
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Sovcit nutz

#794

Post by pipistrelle »

sad-cafe wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:09 pm what is the difference between Pro Se and Pro Per
Cornell says they're the same.
pro per
The term “pro per” is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “in propria persona,” meaning “in their own person,” and it refers to a situation where a litigant represents themselves, without a lawyer. Pro per is synonymous with the more commonly used term pro se.
Baidn
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:43 am

Sovcit nutz

#795

Post by Baidn »

pipistrelle wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:43 pm
sad-cafe wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:09 pm what is the difference between Pro Se and Pro Per
Cornell says they're the same.
pro per
The term “pro per” is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “in propria persona,” meaning “in their own person,” and it refers to a situation where a litigant represents themselves, without a lawyer. Pro per is synonymous with the more commonly used term pro se.
You're correct, it's basically a preference thing based on the region. If I recall correctly it was one of the stupid nitpick things that sovcits thought magic words because they misunderstood it as "proper" and thought pro se was how the courts get you :roll: so you have to correct to your "proper" status instead of being pro se.

Watched him cross examine his ex girlfriend recently and he seems to be a to the core abuser. I think this whole acting out is because he knows his goose is cooked and is trying to exert as much power as he can before he's put away forever.
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Sovcit nutz

#796

Post by sad-cafe »

I felt so sad for the EX



they had a kid when she was 15?

it seems to me that he is trying to refute hitting her and that is what the "trial" is about. He seems to be unaware that that incident sets up the real reason he is on trial for the mass intentional murder of parade watchers.


when they ask if he has any questions and he says 'YES I DO"

I want someone to just knock him
Baidn
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:43 am

Sovcit nutz

#797

Post by Baidn »

Smallest of silver linings but I am so glad she'll be free of him after this trial.
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
User avatar
Arthurwankspittle
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:34 am

Sovcit nutz

#798

Post by Arthurwankspittle »

I wonder if the prosecution will take the opportunity of doing a Meades v Meades breakdown of SovCittery. He'd boil over if a lawyer explained to the jury what all his SovCit BS is, how it has never worked, and how he is trying to use it to get off the charges.
arayder
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 am

Sovcit nutz

#799

Post by arayder »

My question is what could a real lawyer do on an appeal of this case? That is assuming that Brooks decides to lawyer up after losing.

Brooks objections are getting dismissed so routinely that I have to wonder if he didn't stumble onto some sane point by mistake which the judge simply dismissed as another pile of sovcit BS.
Baidn
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:43 am

Sovcit nutz

#800

Post by Baidn »

arayder wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 12:48 pm My question is what could a real lawyer do on an appeal of this case? That is assuming that Brooks decides to lawyer up after losing.

Brooks objections are getting dismissed so routinely that I have to wonder if he didn't stumble onto some sane point by mistake which the judge simply dismissed as another pile of sovcit BS.
On appeal a lawyers best bet would be to argue that Mr. Brooks obviously should never have been allowed to represent himself. Odds are tenuous at best that it would work but that's the only real argument I can see being made, that he is incapable of being an effective advocate for himself and thus should have been provided representation even if he wished to waive it. They may attempt to argue he has an undiagnosed mental issue to help shore up that argument as someone who is mentally ill and unmedicated would not be allowed to waive counsel.
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”