I don't see a place to post about random sovcit nutz here. If there is please delete this Foggy.
Anyway, this one from Trent is special.
Capture.JPG (87.15 KiB) Viewed 94057 times
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:10 am
by Dave from down under
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:53 am
by Foggy
Sounds like somebody dropped LSD and watched Monsters, Inc.
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:17 pm
by Flatpoint High
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:33 am
by scirreeve
Florida sovcit gets his window busted a bit after 2 minutes into this video. The dude narrating it is kind of funny.
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:07 pm
by woodworker
scirreeve wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:47 am
I don't see a place to post about random sovcit nutz here. If there is please delete this Foggy.
Anyway, this one from Trent is special.
Capture.JPG
Wasn't this sort of how the monster world was originally powered in Monsters, Inc.?
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pm
by arayder
scirreeve wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:33 am
Florida sovcit gets his window busted a bit after 2 minutes into this video. The dude narrating it is kind of funny.
It's the sovcit/freeman/poot fantasy meeting reality.
Upon becoming "woke" the individual imagines he can free himself from all that car insurance-driver's license-auto registration-traffic laws-parking fees tyranny that is oppressing him.
We see the shock and rage upon seeing that fantasy so throughly trashed.
Wanderinglord wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:56 am
Not sure where this belongs but here seems appropriate. Love the judge wish they were all like her
So refreshing to see a judge not entertaining any nonsense whatsoever from one of these loons. Hopefully some of the other deluded wannabe “lawyers” and their prospective, possibly pro se, “clients” will see the video.
Wanderinglord wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:56 am
Not sure where this belongs but here seems appropriate. Love the judge wish they were all like her
So refreshing to see a judge not entertaining any nonsense whatsoever from one of these loons. Hopefully some of the other deluded wannabe “lawyers” and their prospective, possibly pro se, “clients” will see the video.
The response is inevitably, "Of course they failed; they didn't say the correct magick words. Which I will teach you, for three easy payment installments...."
And look who shows up in the article - "... Kris Ann Hall, who peddles a conspiracy theory that most of the federal government is unconstitutional and therefore its laws can be ignored."
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:07 am
by Uninformed
From the above quoted article:
“ CORRECTION 3/25/2021 — The phrases “sovereign citizens” and “sovereign citizens” were changed to “sovereign being” and “sovereign beings.”
Anybody aware of the difference between sovereign “citizens” and “beings”? An attempt avoid the bad reputation of “sovereign citizens”?
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:27 am
by fierceredpanda
It was at the end of one of these perfectly reasonable responses, in this case to a man who was insisting the Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison ruling gives all Americans the right to ignore laws they don’t like, that Reams called state Rep. Leslie Herod (D-Denver) a “terrorist.”
I did a double-take at this, because I am much more accustomed to SovCits and their ilk arguing that Marbury v. Madison usurped the constitutional order and must be overturned, because it arrogated power to the Judiciary not granted in the Constitution. I know Roy Moore wrote opinions to that effect when he was on the bench. And you can kind of (just barely) see the faintest semblance of a point there, because John Marshall did kind of invent the notion of judicial review, until you remember that there'd be no fucking point to having a Judicial Branch at all if they didn't have some means to interpret the Constitution and tell the other two branches what it means.
On the other hand, this guy's reading of Marbury is just entertaining, and I encourage him to try it in court sometime, preferably where there are cameras.
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:23 am
by noblepa
Uninformed wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:07 am
From the above quoted article:
“ CORRECTION 3/25/2021 — The phrases “sovereign citizens” and “sovereign citizens” were changed to “sovereign being” and “sovereign beings.”
Anybody aware of the difference between sovereign “citizens” and “beings”? An attempt avoid the bad reputation of “sovereign citizens”?
Some sovcits argue that the phrase "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron. If you're a citizen, you are, by definition, not sovereign. That is why some insist that they are not sovereign citizens, all the while screaming "I do not consent" and proclaiming that laws don't apply to them. They're not objecting to the "sovereign" part, but rather the "citizen" part.
Many sovcits also claim to have renounced their US citizenship. Of course, they claim that, as non-citizens, the laws don't apply to them.
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:36 am
by Uninformed
If only they would also see the “oxy” is redundant.
It was at the end of one of these perfectly reasonable responses, in this case to a man who was insisting the Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison ruling gives all Americans the right to ignore laws they don’t like, that Reams called state Rep. Leslie Herod (D-Denver) a “terrorist.”
I did a double-take at this, because I am much more accustomed to SovCits and their ilk arguing that Marbury v. Madison usurped the constitutional order and must be overturned, because it arrogated power to the Judiciary not granted in the Constitution. I know Roy Moore wrote opinions to that effect when he was on the bench. And you can kind of (just barely) see the faintest semblance of a point there, because John Marshall did kind of invent the notion of judicial review, until you remember that there'd be no fucking point to having a Judicial Branch at all if they didn't have some means to interpret the Constitution and tell the other two branches what it means.
On the other hand, this guy's reading of Marbury is just entertaining, and I encourage him to try it in court sometime, preferably where there are cameras.
I believe that Marshall's reasoning was something like this. The Constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land. If further provides a process for amending the document, when the need arises. This process is distinctly different from the process to pass an ordinary statute. Therefore, Congress can not amend the Constitution by ordinary statute.
If Congress passes a law that is contrary to the Constitution, and that law were allowed to stand, that statute would, effectively, be an amendment to the Constitution, even though it did not go through the prescribed process for amendments.
Therefore, any law that is contrary to the Constitution is no law. If the court were not allowed to overturn a law as unconstitutional, then Congress could and would run roughshod over the Constitution, passing all kinds of things that exceed the authority granted to them by that document.
On a practical level, the notion of Judicial Review has worked remarkably well for 230 years, keeping Congress in check and not allowing them to exceed their authority. It is not perfect, and reasonable people can disagree (without being disagreeable, to quote Ronald Reagan) over a particular decision, but, all in all, the process works pretty well.
The sovcits are the first to agree that a law that is contrary to the Constitution is no law, ab initio, to use one of their favorite latin phrases. Where they go wrong is that they think that they, themselves, get to decide that a law is unconstitutional. In our system, right or wrong, it is the court system, particularly the Supreme Court that makes that determination. I can have an opinion about whether a law is constitutional or not, but my opinion carries no legal weight. If SCOTUS says a law is constitutional, then it IS constitutional.
Wanderinglord wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:56 am
Not sure where this belongs but here seems appropriate. Love the judge wish they were all like her
So refreshing to see a judge not entertaining any nonsense whatsoever from one of these loons. Hopefully some of the other deluded wannabe “lawyers” and their prospective, possibly pro se, “clients” will see the video.
The response is inevitably, "Of course they failed; they didn't say the correct magick words. Which I will teach you, for three easy payment installments...."
Uninformed wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:43 am
So refreshing to see a judge not entertaining any nonsense whatsoever from one of these loons. Hopefully some of the other deluded wannabe “lawyers” and their prospective, possibly pro se, “clients” will see the video.
The response is inevitably, "Of course they failed; they didn't say the correct magick words. Which I will teach you, for three easy payment installments...."
No true SovCit would say the wrong magick wordz.
And yet, they must be because they keep losing when they try them. It's a
When you hear a window smash, it means another SovCit got their wings.
Attempting to find consistency in SovCit claims is likely finding empathy in Trump. It just ain't there. That's because all of the claims, ideology, and magic words are based on 2 core beliefs:
1. Nobody can tell me what to do.
2. Everybody is out to get me.
Re: Sovcit nutz
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:19 pm
by Baidn
If anybody likes watching breakdowns of the more dedicated sovcits I'd recommend watching Arty's corporate fiction on YouTube. There's a couple really good ones with Trent starting with him losing his shit in the comments it's great :p
Thought this might be parody but looked at his page and NOPE. Total nutter. Might not be a sovcit so maybe wrong thread but whatever. Found it while looking at Flatcap stuff.
