|Chocolate Jesus |
The real show is over on liveleak where those 'constitution loving' morons are defending this freeman of the land shit.
cant we just put a fence around Antarctica and send this guy (and the commenters) there?
they wont have government bothering them, they can speed and poach as much as they want before freezing to death.
You guys are thinking too hard about it. I was more leaning toward air dropping them into the middle of the frozen wasteland with nothing but the clothes on their back and a pocket knife.
Oscar Wildcat, last time this happened they sent the to Rhode Island but we've got enough of them here.
I really hope Gosling grabs best supporting actor for this one.
Also, "Do you require medical assistance?"
I love how he took a moment to blast the prosecutor for being born in British.
Of all the things.
no I think it's because barred lawyers get the title of esquire...this guy thinks the queen on England gives it out, or something.
|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. |
A nice way I discovered of thinking about this issue;
Humans are the most disruptive/destructive animal on the planet. You cant just let humans go free or they will probably completely destroy their environment, humans must be regulated.
I know a guy who' kind of like this but at least he has the integrity to make his own clothes from his own yarn from his own sheep, and hasn't used electricity in 25 years. This guy lost the last of his credibility when he stood up and was wearing cheap, imported blue jeans. If you're going to be a luddite you've got to commit.
The guy I know is pretty great, he runs a historical farm out in the country now but he got into this world back in the 80s because, as he tells it, he decided he wanted to make his own wool shirts but he wanted to use only local materials and couldn't find any, so he started his first sweater by buying some sheep. He's definitely a strange guy but he's nothing like this guy, he just lives in the 19th century and hangs out with quakers and thinks the human cost of modern society is too high to justify its benefits. I don't agree but I cansee and respect whre he's coming from.
This guy on the other hand is just a waste of a sweet beard.
google "meads v meads" in order to read J. Rooke's very thoroughly researched treatise on freeman/sovereign bullshit of all kinds.
at Para 671 the learned judge opines "William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.” I believe that is true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most generous, wildly dubious concepts."
but sadly, the judge misunderstands the quote.
It is an old adage among con men that "you cannot con an honest man". This reflects the fact that all cons are based on promising the Mark something for nothing. The resulting greed drives the con forward in the face of colder reality. Now conmen themselves are greedy, and thus are susceptible to being conned. That is the Mark inside.
Yeah, that sounds more like what Burroughs could have meant... For a lighter and hilarious approach to a self declared sovereign man see this Ontario Judge's ruling. ...http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.ht ml
or type 'R v Duncan' into Canlii.org
highly recommend reading the footnotes to R v Duncan
I'm sitting at the keyboard actually weeping with laughter. You're a prince, Zurf.
Wow! Canada has the Ambrose Bierce legal system, I love this!
"3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction - Magic Hats.............................................. 68"
best. table of contents. ever.
Rookes does a Herculean job of corralling that motherlode of Agean horseshit into one stable. I'm finding it interesting to see where the judge ends up with some of these arguments, such as 458-472 ( The Legal Effect of a Foisted Agreement ). Something like a click through software license agreement comes awfully close to that definition, just skirting the edges.
Oscar Wildcat: Software license agreements have been challenged in American courts as non-binding for pretty much the reasons I imagine you are thinking of. However, It is now well established that these agreements are *usually* binding, despite the fact that no person ever reads them. Google ProCD v Zeidenberg for a good case on that matter...
|blue vein steel |
when has this "sovereign citizen" crap ever actually worked? These people seem to have so much faith in a scheme that has never actually worked in court.
One of Canada's most popular 'gurus' on the subject explicitly states that he does NOT, himself, try to apply these tactics in court.
But for the low, low price of 0, he'll tell you how to do it!
Even the whole seduction guru thing has SOME bits of truth buried in there.
they like to tout cases that are acquitted based on lack of evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt as actually being victories for their prattle.
Oh, like 'alternative' medicine practitioners who claim they've cured a patient because the patient ended up surviving longer than the real doctor's prognosis? Well, if that's the standard of truth that Nominal is using.....LOL. I have a broken clock I'd like to sell you....
All I meant was that sovereign citizen seminars make PUA seminars look sane and grounded by comparison.
I love that they get exactly two sentences into the proceedings before he begins.
Beautiful. My crazy Freeman-On-The-Land father was just showing me a video of this guy in court the other day. I asked him if there were any follow-up videos and he said he wasn't sure, but "It doesn't really matter, does it?". Pretty tempted to send him the link to this video.
Don't worry, though; I'll link him right to YT so he doesn't come here and start raging like an ape in our pretty comment sections.
God-damnit BS, don't try to hide him in the closet. LET YOUR FREAK FLAG WAVE HIGH! I for one welcome the raging ape.
So..., you're protecting him from us? How disappointingly merciful of you.
Oh he doesn't need any protection; this particular breed of ignorance is it's own holy shield. I'm trying to protect myself from having to deal with his ALL-CAPS treatises and assorted glossolalia. Don't get me wrong; I love the old goon and have an enjoyable time arguing with him about our respective points of view, or just trolling the shit out of him with some good-ol'-fashioned critical thinking.
I just don't want him peeing in my favourite wading pool.
It's cool. I'm fairly certain that if my dad had ever learned to use the Internet and found me here, he would have shot me out of anger.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
I bet this guy was functioning just fine in society until you know who got elected to the White House.
I think the old Clarke quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." applies here as well. These people don't understand law or government at all, so it just seems like magic words that can make people do things. So, naturally, they go looking for Words of Power of their own that shady hucksters assure them will have the desired effects if recited in the proper way, accompanied by the properly prepared ritual documents.
They are LAW WIZARDS.
(A cargo cult comparison would also work.)
Power Word Freedom (Level 9, arcane)
All monsters within earshot must make saving throw vs. spell or be forced to intone Power Word Freedom. When all have intoned, power word dissipates with no effect.
Sadly, I'm not much better, apart from knowing that I'm not a wizard and that I need a lot more money to get the law to come to my aid.
That said, as I understand it, the law is a lot like a computing language in that words have very, VERY specific meanings (i.e. classifications of crimes by degrees, attempted murder vs. manslaughter, etc.) but a lot of people don't get even that much. I know a lot of people laughed at Bill Clinton over what the meaning of "is" is, but that's like laughing at a programmer who wants to know specifically if you mean "go to" or "goto."
I was sent this by a dear friend who I not only successfully talked down FROM South Park conservatism, but he's now a proud Democrat and going back to school after dropping out at age 15. So it is possible to convert them. It takes a willingness to befriend them.
Not to split hairs, but don't you think he should be given SOME of the credit? Nobody climbs out of these sorts of trenches if they don't see for themselves that it's going to ruin them. Or, if they do, aren't they just being trained to exhibit rational behaviours without the actual impetus towards rational modes of thinking?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|