"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Subduction Zone]

But what difference should it make, especially if it's not legally important?

These people tend to be just a little bit off balance mentally. One common part of their condition seems to be severe cognitive dissonance. When that occurs the brain grasps on the thinnest of straws and treats them as if they were Gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not, but if it's no big deal either way, then there'd be no reason for any judges to make a fuss about it.

It is a "big deal" if some ignorant fool tries to claim that the findings of the court are void due to fringes on the flag. And these fringey nuts try to do just that. When they make crazy claims the burden of proof is upon them. If courts tried to satisfy every demand of loons cases would never finish. And that is a tactic that some of these extremists use. If they are out on bail on a charge a delay is almost as good as a win.

 

[Revoltingest]

These people tend to be just a little bit off balance mentally. One common part of their condition seems to be severe cognitive dissonance. When that occurs the brain grasps on the thinnest of straws and treats them as if they were Gospel.

I can sympathize with them....more so than those who easily comply with what government
demands. Back in the day, I nearly left the country just before Nixon ended the draft, & I'd
have been sent to Viet Nam. I saw no constitutional justification for government to force me
into involuntary servitude. The vast majority of people rejected my argument. They saw it
as naught but a "thin straw" to illegally evade my 'duty'.
So I fall somewhere in between the extremes of the crazy spectrum.

My draft physical was entertaining. I've detailed it before, but suffice to say that I decided they
could go forth & multiply, & left before it ended. I was the only one of hundreds there who
refused to cooperate. There are times when playing along seems too wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

It is a "big deal" if some ignorant fool tries to claim that the findings of the court are void due to fringes on the flag. And these fringey nuts try to do just that. When they make crazy claims the burden of proof is upon them. If courts tried to satisfy every demand of loons cases would never finish. And that is a tactic that some of these extremists use. If they are out on bail on a charge a delay is almost as good as a win.

Well, it seems like a lot of fuss and feathers over something that everyone is falling all over themselves to claim is no big deal or has no legal significance. If it's really no significance, then there's no reason not to do it. By making a big deal out of nothing, it just invites more suspicion of the courts and the legal process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it seems like a lot of fuss and feathers over something that everyone is falling all over themselves to claim is no big deal or has no legal significance. If it's really no significance, then there's no reason not to do it. By making a big deal out of nothing, it just invites more suspicion of the courts and the legal process.

You missed the point. If they went along with that they would bring up another idiotic and ridiculous demand that would delay the action. If it is such a big deal the person making a big deal out of flags should not only be willing to supply a different one, he should have one handy. It is not the governments job to coddle idiots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can sympathize with them....more so than those who easily comply with what government
demands. Back in the day, I nearly left the country just before Nixon ended the draft, & I'd
have been sent to Viet Nam. I saw no constitutional justification for government to force me
into involuntary servitude. The vast majority of people rejected my argument. They saw it
as naught but a "thin straw" to illegally evade my 'duty'.
So I fall somewhere in between the extremes of the crazy spectrum.

My draft physical was entertaining. I've detailed it before, but suffice to say that I decided they
could go forth & multiply, & left before it ended. I was the only one of hundreds there who
refused to cooperate. There are times when playing along seems too wrong.

I was just a little too young for that war. Though in college a classmate of mine was drafted. He saw that he had a low number and went on a starvation diet. He was over six foot tall and weighed about 120 on the day of his physical. He failed his physical. Afterwards he decided he liked being thin so he was still under 140 when I knew him.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've seen such flags quite often, although I've rarely encountered anyone who comments on them (other than "sovereign citizens") or cares one way or the other. It shouldn't really matter; a flag is a flag.



That seems really weird to me; even weirder than "sovereign citizens." Why should anyone care? I can see people getting upset over burning or defacing the flag, but I can't imagine why a gold fringe would really mean that much to anyone that they would get that upset if a flag didn't have gold fringe. From what I'm able to gather, it's just a superficial affectation which has no meaning whatsoever. It's not even actually a recognized part of the flag. We say "hooray for the red, white, and blue, not the red, white, blue, and yellow."

I don't know why it would matter to anyone either...but clearly, it does, to some...

 

[Stevicus]

You missed the point. If they went along with that they would bring up another idiotic and ridiculous demand that would delay the action.

I don't think so. It's really not that big a deal. Or at least, it shouldn't be. The only thing that gives the whole notion any credence at all is due to such refusals to change the flag while insisting that it means nothing. Why don't they just do it anyway, even if a defendant doesn't demand it? What they afraid of? What are they trying to hide? The more defensive people get about an insignificant detail that's supposedly "nothing," it makes it more and more suspicious.

If it is such a big deal the person making a big deal out of flags should not only be willing to supply a different one, he should have one handy.

So, if someone brings in their own flag, the judge would agree to display it in the courtroom upon request?

It is not the governments job to coddle idiots.

There is some irony to this statement. But that aside, it is the government's job to maintain transparency, and if someone believes that a gold fringe on a flag means something while the government denies that's the case, then all they have to do is change it and say "There, you see? No big deal." The fact that they would refuse is what is more telling.

You make it sound like the judge is being asked to wear a pink bathrobe.

EDIT: I don't see this as any different from someone who doesn't speak English requesting a translator or some other accommodation which the court would readily provide. It might delay the action a bit, but that shouldn't be a problem under the circumstances.

Besides, it would take far less time to comply with such a request than it does to bicker about it or find someone in "contempt" when it would be so much easier to go along with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so. It's really not that big a deal. Or at least, it shouldn't be. The only thing that gives the whole notion any credence at all is due to such refusals to change the flag while insisting that it means nothing. Why don't they just do it anyway, even if a defendant doesn't demand it? What they afraid of? What are they trying to hide? The more defensive people get about an insignificant detail that's supposedly "nothing," it makes it more and more suspicious.

If you can't see that it is a ridiculous demand after all of this I doubt if I can help you.

So, if someone brings in their own flag, the judge would agree to display it in the courtroom upon request?

If he had a valid reason he might. Do you understand the concept of the burden of proof? By making a rather outrageous claim the defendant puts the burden of proof upon himself. Do you think that he could do that?

There is some irony to this statement. But that aside, it is the government's job to maintain transparency, and if someone believes that a gold fringe on a flag means something while the government denies that's the case, then all they have to do is change it and say "There, you see? No big deal." The fact that they would refuse is what is more telling.

You make it sound like the judge is being asked to wear a pink bathrobe.

EDIT: I don't see this as any different from someone who doesn't speak English requesting a translator or some other accommodation which the court would readily provide. It might delay the action a bit, but that shouldn't be a problem under the circumstances.

Besides, it would take far less time to comply with such a request than it does to bicker about it or find someone in "contempt" when it would be so much easier to go along with it.

Seriously what is the difference between this and your pink bathrobe comment? And the court is being transparent. An idiotic demand or claim was made by the defendant.

And translation is a totally different matter. Communication is needed for a fair trial. A flag with or without fringe, not so much.

Would you care to fail again?

 

[Stevicus]

If you can't see that it is a ridiculous demand after all of this I doubt if I can help you.

I think you're getting a bit unglued here. You're making far too much of a deal over this. What's the problem?

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just a little too young for that war. Though in college a classmate of mine was drafted. He saw that he had a low number and went on a starvation diet. He was over six foot tall and weighed about 120 on the day of his physical. He failed his physical. Afterwards he decided he liked being thin so he was still under 140 when I knew him.

Aye, the privilege of being below standard.
I considered conscious objector status, but it was too degrading
& disgusting to cook up a story about having religious beliefs.
I hadn't thought of being too skinny. But that sounds unhealthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aye, the privilege of being below standard.
I considered conscious objector status, but it was too degrading
& disgusting to cook up a story about having religious beliefs.
I hadn't thought of being too skinny. But that sounds unhealthy.

He was still very lean, but not dangerously so when I knew him. And since America is rather fat today his decision may have been a healthy one.
And if it came down to it I would merely have had to hang around a dog for a while before my physical if I was ever drafted. Nothing like a strong asthma attack to avert unwanted service.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're getting a bit unglued here. You're making far too much of a deal over this. What's the problem?

No problem on my end. There is only so many times that an explanation can be given before one starts to run out of patience.

 

[Valjean]

I can sympathize with them....more so than those who easily comply with what government
demands. Back in the day, I nearly left the country just before Nixon ended the draft, & I'd
have been sent to Viet Nam. I saw no constitutional justification for government to force me
into involuntary servitude. The vast majority of people rejected my argument. They saw it
as naught but a "thin straw" to illegally evade my 'duty'.
So I fall somewhere in between the extremes of the crazy spectrum.

My draft physical was entertaining. I've detailed it before, but suffice to say that I decided they
could go forth & multiply, & left before it ended. I was the only one of hundreds there who
refused to cooperate. There are times when playing along seems too wrong.

You have my respect for having the courage of your convictions. Most simply take the coward's path and go along with the crowd.
Curiously, they often project their own moral cowardice onto the people of conscience and accuse them of being the cowards.
It must be difficult to face the fact that you're abdicating moral responsibility and joining an organization diametrically opposed to the social and religious values you've been raised with.

I don't know why it would matter to anyone either...but clearly, it does, to some...

People are obsessed with symbols. They seem to care little for substance, but will become irate when the symbol of said substance is criticized.
Many are eager to penalize those disparaging the flag, for example, even when the right to disparage it is exactly what the flag symbolizes. Criticizing the iconoclasts disrespects both the flag and what it symbolizes.

Quibbling about details like fringe misses the point completely, IMHO. It's a tacit acknowledgement that the quibbler is a legal subject of the authority he's objecting to, ie: not sovereign at all.
I'd have more respect for them if they'd just disavow the authority of government entirely and point out that an accident of birth doesn't automatically require obedience to whatever gang currently lays claim to the territory they inhabit.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have my respect for having the courage of your convictions. Most simply take the coward's path and go along with the crowd.

It didn't seem courageous....just practical.

Curiously, they often project their own moral cowardice onto the people of conscience and accuse them of being the cowards.
It must be difficult to face the fact that you're abdicating moral responsibility and joining an organization diametrically opposed to the social and religious values you've been raised with.

People are obsessed with symbols. They seem to care little for substance, but will become irate when the symbol of said substance is criticized.
Many are eager to penalize those disparaging the flag, for example, even when the right to disparage it is exactly what the flag symbolizes. Criticizing the iconoclasts disrespects both the flag and what it symbolizes.

Quibbling about details like fringe misses the point completely, IMHO. It's a tacit acknowledgement that the quibbler is a legal subject of the authority he's objecting to, ie: not sovereign at all.
I'd have more respect for them if they'd just disavow the authority of government entirely and point out that an accident of birth doesn't automatically require obedience to whatever gang currently lays claim to the territory they inhabit.

Some people did take offense, believing that I was shirking my duty.
But I saw no duty to shirk.
And others would argue that someone else would have to go in my stead.
I saw that as their choice to make, & not my responsibility at all.

 

[Stevicus]

No problem on my end. There is only so many times that an explanation can be given before one starts to run out of patience.

Well, it just seemed like a lot of to-do over what you maintain has no significance. If it's really true that the gold fringe on a flag has no significance in a courtroom, then a judge's wanton refusal to change or remove the flag is a case of someone who doth protest too much, which casts suspicion on the process. You said that a judge should not give into a demand which you described as "idiotic," "ridiculous," or whatever unnecessary pejoratives you wanted to throw in, which would suggest you do have a problem when someone questions the validity of the judicial process.

I'm just a neutral observer here, and then because I dared to question it, you started in on me in a condescending and peremptory manner over something which you keep claiming has no meaning.

You also erroneously suggested that changing the flag would "delay the process," which is a deflection, because it really wouldn't take that much time or bother to do something so relatively simple. It's just a flag, for Pete's sake.

You also suggested that if a judge "gave in" to such a demand it would invite more demands which is a fallacious slippery slope argument bordering on paranoia. It also appears somewhat egotistical of a judge to take such a position, as if to say "No one is going to DARE question the validity of MY authority here!" Who does a judge think he is? Only an egotistical tyrant would think in those terms, and this, just by itself, is very telling. (Vincent Bugliosi touched upon this in his book "Outrage," when he spoke of America's perception of judges as being something akin to "holy men," wearing black robes and other ritualistic practices in a courtroom.)

You asked me if I understand the concept of "burden of proof." Of course I understand it, but the question is, do you know what's being asked to be proven here? A defendant who makes such a request is merely asking for proof that he's going to get a fair trial and that he's not being tried by a military dictatorship which falsely claims itself to be a "free," "open," and "democratic" government. If a representative of that government is adamantly refusing to demonstrate and prove this, then that speaks volumes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it just seemed like a lot of to-do over what you maintain has no significance. If it's really true that the gold fringe on a flag has no significance in a courtroom, then a judge's wanton refusal to change or remove the flag is a case of someone who doth protest too much, which casts suspicion on the process. You said that a judge should not give into a demand which you described as "idiotic," "ridiculous," or whatever unnecessary pejoratives you wanted to throw in, which would suggest you do have a problem when someone questions the validity of the judicial process.

I'm just a neutral observer here, and then because I dared to question it, you started in on me in a condescending and peremptory manner over something which you keep claiming has no meaning.

You also erroneously suggested that changing the flag would "delay the process," which is a deflection, because it really wouldn't take that much time or bother to do something so relatively simple. It's just a flag, for Pete's sake.

You also suggested that if a judge "gave in" to such a demand it would invite more demands which is a fallacious slippery slope argument bordering on paranoia. It also appears somewhat egotistical of a judge to take such a position, as if to say "No one is going to DARE question the validity of MY authority here!" Who does a judge think he is? Only an egotistical tyrant would think in those terms, and this, just by itself, is very telling. (Vincent Bugliosi touched upon this in his book "Outrage," when he spoke of America's perception of judges as being something akin to "holy men," wearing black robes and other ritualistic practices in a courtroom.)

You asked me if I understand the concept of "burden of proof." Of course I understand it, but the question is, do you know what's being asked to be proven here? A defendant who makes such a request is merely asking for proof that he's going to get a fair trial and that he's not being tried by a military dictatorship which falsely claims itself to be a "free," "open," and "democratic" government. If a representative of that government is adamantly refusing to demonstrate and prove this, then that speaks volumes.

Nope., you are just being unreasonable.

 

[Stevicus]

Nope., you are just being unreasonable.

Believe that, if it makes you feel better.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You have my respect for having the courage of your convictions. Most simply take the coward's path and go along with the crowd.
Curiously, they often project their own moral cowardice onto the people of conscience and accuse them of being the cowards.
It must be difficult to face the fact that you're abdicating moral responsibility and joining an organization diametrically opposed to the social and religious values you've been raised with.

People are obsessed with symbols. They seem to care little for substance, but will become irate when the symbol of said substance is criticized.
Many are eager to penalize those disparaging the flag, for example, even when the right to disparage it is exactly what the flag symbolizes. Criticizing the iconoclasts disrespects both the flag and what it symbolizes.

Quibbling about details like fringe misses the point completely, IMHO. It's a tacit acknowledgement that the quibbler is a legal subject of the authority he's objecting to, ie: not sovereign at all.
I'd have more respect for them if they'd just disavow the authority of government entirely and point out that an accident of birth doesn't automatically require obedience to whatever gang currently lays claim to the territory they inhabit.

Agreed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believe that, if it makes you feel better.

One more time, courts of law cannot accommodate an possible endless series of ridiculous demands. If someone wants to change something the burden of proof is upon him. You don't see the damage in endless unreasonable demands and you could not even explain why your own ridiculous example was any different from the gold fringe idiocy. If you can't defend your own unreasonable example you only underscore why the fringe claim is beyond fringey.