Sovcit nutz

[qbawl]

Wnere does the Ikea Meatball Cafe fit in?

Mayor's court?

[Gregg]

Wnere does the Ikea Meatball Cafe fit in?

Admiralty Law and Probate

[Gregg]

I was under the impression that the hierarchical structure of the Sov-Cit court system ran:

Court of first mis-impression = Denny's
Appellate = Waffle House
Supreme = White Castle

Is this not the case?

sometimes, but sometimes...

Court of first mis-impression = Sizzler
Appellate = Golden Corral
Supreme = Cracker Barrel

and

International Criminal Court = IHOP

[Sam the Centipede]

Doesn't it start with the nearest court restaurant which has jurisdiction pancakes?

[Ben-Prime]

Wnere does the Ikea Meatball Cafe fit in?

Bankruptcy court?

[Kriselda Gray]

If Sam is right, then sovcit lawyers can practically go forum shopping around here. I've got 2 Dennys, 2 Perkins, a Waffle House and an IHOP within about 5 miles of me

Say, where does Perkins fit into the court scheme of things? I know we can't be the only place that has them, right?

[Ben-Prime]

Off Topic

Although we clearly now need a separate Waffle House Appreciation Thread somewhere.

[Ben-Prime]

Say, where does Perkins fit into the court scheme of things? I know we can't be the only place that has them, right?

When I was making my first attempt at grad study at UF in the Early 90s, I lived about 3 minutes from a Perkins and they were my backup for 'fancier' breakfasts than the mom and pop bagel joint, or when I was craving pie for post-breakfast or brunch dessert.

[Frater I*I]

I was under the impression that the hierarchical structure of the Sov-Cit court system ran:

Court of first mis-impression = Denny's
Appellate = Waffle House
Supreme = White Castle

Is this not the case?

No, White Castle is hallowed ground good sir...


The Supremes meet at Huddle House...

[qbawl]

I was under the impression that the hierarchical structure of the Sov-Cit court system ran:

Court of first mis-impression = Denny's
Appellate = Waffle House
Supreme = White Castle

Is this not the case?

sometimes, but sometimes...

Court of first mis-impression = Sizzler
Appellate = Golden Corral
Supreme = Cracker Barrel

and

International Criminal Court = IHOP

Looking at that lineup there has to be a place for, "Pre- Chewed Charlies" is FISA taken?

[woodworker]

Wnere does the Ikea Meatball Cafe fit in?

Post-meal vomitarium.

[Phoenix520]

Sugar, a double smothered whatnow? Do you need a lawyer?

[Volkonski]

https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/dinin ... az6hFukGP/

Won't need a lawyer. Might need some antacid.

[sad-cafe]

man I want some now

[humblescribe]

Wnere does the Ikea Meatball Cafe fit in?

Post-meal vomitarium.

Vomitorium is a word. But it has nothing to do with upper GI issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

[johnpcapitalist]

Just a heads-up on an odd footnote in the case of the late, unlamented pretend grand jury poot Terry Trussell. As you may recall, I discovered that Jeff Siegmeister, the State's Attorney that Trussell targeted with nuisance liens subsequently got himself in a whole heap of trouble, as I documented here: viewtopic.php?p=74859

In a random synapse firing, I flashed on Siegmeister's case and wondered what his sentence was. He pled out in February of this year to four of the thirteen counts against him. Sentencing has been pushed back a couple of times and is now scheduled for October 17, in case anyone wants to remember and check back to see how that turned out.

As before, Trussell has been so thoroughly forgotten by all the poots who screamed so loudly about his persecution that there is no one who noticed and started talking about schadenfreude because of Trussell's constant claims of corruption in the judicial process in Florida.

[noblepa]

My wife likes to watch "Court TV", and the trial of the guy accused of driving his vehicle into a parade in Waukesha, WI, has just begun.

The other day, we were watching the hearing in which the judge granted his request to represent himself. The judge was explaining some of the ramifications of representing himself. She was reading a statement and he kept talking over her saying "I don't understand".

He had fired his public defender and asked to defend himself. Wisconsin law apparently doesn't allow PD's to act as stand-by counsel to a pro-se defendant.

My first clue was the fact that he had, at first, accepted a PD and then fired him. That is often a sign that the defendant insists that the lawyer make some bizarre legal argument that has no basis in law, which a lawyer can not do.

Then he kept talking over the judge saying "I do not understand". This is, of course, sovcit code meaning "I do not stand under the law".

Today, he was asking the judge for a certified copy of her oath.

If it talks like a sovcit and walks like a sovcit, it probably is a sovcit.

Today in court, he came out and claimed to be a "Sovereign Citizen".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ac ... 76626fdb2a

I'll go make some popcorn.

[neonzx]

[Jerry Mander]

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?

[roadscholar]

We are living in a new thing: The Post-Epistemic Age.

Believing-- unswervingly, absolutely-- in things for which there is no evidence, much less proof, used to be considered mental illness. No more.

And it seems to be everywhere.

Q-anon, the Big Lie, Birtherism, January 6th being a "tourist visit," the demonization of Dr. Fauci, George Soros, etc., SovCittery, practically everything Trump ever said, Holocaust denialism, Slavery denialism, the Moon Landing 'Hoax'... and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Utter nonsense, fervently believed. As the kids say, WTF?

What they all have in common is the fantasy of "I know a Truth that everyone else is wrong about!" Which means the Post-Epistemic Age is a compensatory reaction to some crippling inner emptiness... perhaps more a spiritual illness than mental after all.

And I don't see it ending well.

[sugar magnolia]

We are living in a new thing: The Post-Epistemic Age.

Believing-- unswervingly, absolutely-- in things for which there is no evidence, much less proof, used to be considered mental illness. No more.

And it seems to be everywhere.

Q-anon, the Big Lie, Birtherism, January 6th being a "tourist visit," the demonization of Dr. Fauci, George Soros, etc., SovCittery, practically everything Trump ever said, Holocaust denialism, Slavery denialism, the Moon Landing 'Hoax'... and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Utter nonsense, fervently believed. As the kids say, WTF?

What they all have in common is the fantasy of "I know a Truth that everyone else is wrong about!" Which means the Post-Epistemic Age is a compensatory reaction to some crippling inner emptiness... perhaps more a spiritual illness than mental after all.

And I don't see it ending well.

You forgot the flat earthers!

[Suranis]

You forgot the flat earthers!

The difference between the Age of the Internet and the Middle Ages is that back then no-one thought the Earth was Flat.

[Foggy]

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?

[p0rtia]

I am wont to bring up the thought patterns and behaviors of folks whose lives revolve around supernatural god beliefs when trying to bring useful perspective to the discussion of MAGA, Q, and the modern concept of Conspiracy Theories. Most often I point out the uselessness of argument and the presentation of fact. This rarely goes over well, even with my fellow-aethiest family members. I persist.

[Suranis]

The problem is that, at least in Europe, the periods regarded as the most Religious were also the eras most concerned with Rationality and evidence.

This is demonstrated by a letter in response to Paolo Antonio Foscarini by the head of the Roman Inquisition, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, on a pamphlet circulated espousing ideas that were very similar to what Galileo would be espousing soon

https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

So we can see that even the Inquisition was open to reinterpreting scripture in the face of new evidence. And yes, Bellarmine was both an accomplished Mathematician and would be the judge in the Trial of Galileo.

What we have here is not the rise of Faith, but the Rise in Philosophical Skepticism, as expressed in the writings of people like David Hume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge. It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. In the latter sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, to knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.

Basically skeptics deny the possibility that you can know anything, because anything you use as evidence is inherently suspect. For example. I have no first hand evidence that China exists. Therefore I can rationally deny it, rationally in the sense of thinking.

What happens with Sov cits and such is that they first attack the very foundations of your knowledge by posting impossibly high standards if what can be considered evidence, then when the subject is reeling from no longer having any basis for a worldview and being taught to regect the experts, they are filled up with nonsense, and persuaded that they are superior to the sheep who cannot think in such a free way.

Similar to the way that Columbus thought everyone else's mathematics were wrong, and the Earth was actually the shape of a Pear.

Once you are taught that the experts are all wrong or lying, you don't have anything to base your own worldview on. By contrast, it could be argued that organizations like the Catholic Church (for example) are far too reliant on tradition and past thinkers, but it DOES give you a far more stable worldview to live by.