"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Stevicus]

Again with the false claims about others.

When you do not understand you should ask questions politely and properly. And please don't try to apply logical fallacies that you do not understand.

If you want to we could go back to the ridiculous flag demand and work from there. But no wandering off point allowed. There is a reason that adults laugh at loons like the sovereign citizen movement.

"They laugh because they know they're untouchable, not because what I said was wrong."

It's called "abuse of power." Some adults have been known to do that as well. Perhaps you've heard of that concept, or maybe you haven't. Still, I can recognize a souffle when I see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"They laugh because they know they're untouchable, not because what I said was wrong."

It's called "abuse of power." Some adults have been known to do that as well. Perhaps you've heard of that concept, or maybe you haven't. Still, I can recognize a souffle when I see it.

Nope, wrong again. Flag issue first, then we can discuss your other errors.

 

[Nous]

You mean the "adults" who believe that America is a "free" country and that people have "rights"?

Regardless of what you want to believe about the US being or not being "free," people do have rights in the US.

 

[YmirGF]

What I find difficult to understand is how an 18-year-old, or someone even older, gets to the point of hearing someone claim that it's "illegal" for the federal (or state or local) government to levy taxes, and s/he believes it. Did s/he just not go to or pay attention in his/her junior high civics class?

We don't really do civics here in the Great White North. So, no, it's not really covered in our classes. (Maybe, in passing.)

 

[YmirGF]

What I find difficult to understand is how an 18-year-old, or someone even older, gets to the point of hearing someone claim that it's "illegal" for the federal (or state or local) government to levy taxes, and s/he believes it. Did s/he just not go to or pay attention in his/her junior high civics class?

Indeed. I guess I am protected by my inherent cynicism and consider stuff like this that sound too good to be true - likely are too good to be true.

 

[YmirGF]

But that would require actual work. Surely there is an easier way.

I think we can also look to Professor Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" for why people believe this drivel.

 

[Stevicus]

Regardless of what you want to believe about the US being or not being "free," people do have rights in the US.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It just depends on whether the tyrants are in a good mood or not. It's just like Trump tweeting based on however he feels. Is that your idea of good government?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm a fan of avoiding p1ssing off cops.
I cooperate with dang near everything they ask...so long as it's reasonable.
But I gotta guard against accidentally confessing....

As this thread taught me about Sovereign Citizen's, I kept thinking, 'Revoltingest? Yeah, Revoltingest!'

I remember your rant about that official who called at your place over some planning (?) issue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we can also look to Professor Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" for why people believe this drivel.

I was of course being a bit facetious, but nice link nonetheless. Some of the lines about George Bush are ten times more applicable today. Trump is the first president that I would ever call scary. Those before him may have abused their power a bit, and that applies to both sides, but I was never worried about them doing so to excess. I know that if Trump had has way he would pass all sorts of clearly unconstitutional and clearly immoral laws.

 

[Stevicus]

Nope, wrong again. Flag issue first, then we can discuss your other errors.

You know, just because you say that something is wrong, it doesn't make it true. Simply responding with "I know you are but what am I," as if you're Peewee Herman - it's not an argument. And yet, you have the audacity to talk about what "adults" do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. It's merely pointing out the notion that everyone is "equal before the law." What you're saying here is that the concept is not true at all. If that's the case, then okay, but at the very least, don't lie about it. Lying just makes it worse.

Nope, wrong again, but until we cover your flag errors I will not go any more deeply into this. And you need to apologize for the false claim of lying. That is against the rules here.

The "flag error" you're referring to is based on your claim that gold fringe around the flag doesn't mean anything. "Sovereign citizens" believe that it means that a court is under admiralty law, which would indicate military law. I haven't actually made a direct, positive claim about this, because I honestly don't know either way. I'm agnostic about this as I am about a great many things.

Yes, and we need to go over your error. You are obviously wrong in this matter to any reasoning person. You claim to be able to reason, let's see if that is true or not.

All I'm really guilty of here is not putting any faith in what politicians say. Judges are politicians, too. So, if they (or you) require that others have faith in what they say, then the burden is on them (or you) to prove that what they (or you) say is true. Until then, you're offering nothing but hot air. You talk about being "adult," but how "adult" can you possibly when you're just stomping your feet and proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong - nyah, nyah, nyah!" That's what you're doing here. I'm not claiming to be right. All I'm asking is that you prove that you're right, which you've been unable to do.

Nope, you are not doing that. But again, one error at a time. Flag issue first.

You've alluded to how "dangerous" these people are, and I would agree that these are dangerous and uneasy times in America these days. If people are losing faith in the system, then the question is, what are you willing to do to restore that faith? Verbal abuse and condescending attitudes don't impress me, and they actually make an uneasy situation worse. All I would ask is, don't attempt to escalate a tense situation just to satisfy your own ego. Take the chip off your shoulder, drop the pomposity, and just talk like an ordinary human being.

Once again, I don't care about your other errors right now. Flag issue first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know, just because you say that something is wrong, it doesn't make it true. Simply responding with "I know you are but what am I," as if you're Peewee Herman - it's not an argument. And yet, you have the audacity to talk about what "adults" do.

Yes, but unlike you I can support my claims. Once again, flag issue first. And a retraction and an apology. I don't lie. I do not need to since the evidence supports me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm a fan of avoiding p1ssing off cops.
I cooperate with dang near everything they ask...so long as it's reasonable.
But I gotta guard against accidentally confessing....

**** I couldn't do those things sober, lol.

 

[Nous]

Regardless of what you want to believe about the US being or not being "free," people do have rights in the US.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It just depends on whether the tyrants are in a good mood or not. It's just like Trump tweeting based on however he feels. Is that your idea of good government?

What is any of that supposed to mean? What "tyrants" are you talking about?

The rights that are recognized by the government, such as those rights articulated in the federal Constitution, are continual. They don't go in and out of existence or become valid or invalid according to some "tyrant's" "mood".

Are you suggesting that some tyrant has violated some right of yours recently? If so, what right, how was it violated, and what did you do about it?

By the way, thanks to the First Amendment, Trump enjoys the right to tweet, to publicly express his ignorant, delusional thoughts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The rights that are recognized by the government, such as those rights articulated in the federal Constitution, are continual. They don't go in and out of existence or become valid or invalidate according to some "tyrant's" "mood".

The PATRIOT Act gave the government broad sweeping powers to collect information without warrant, rendering citizens of America and abroad not secure in their persons and possessions, and with no regards to due process. Marriage was declared a basic human right many years ago, but yet homosexuals did not get to enjoy that right until recently, and even when the Supreme Court finally granted it many state officials--including Mike Pence--tried to deny that and refuse to grant marriage as a right to homosexuals.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember your rant about that official who called at your place over some planning (?) issue?

It was a visit.
He wanted to inspect the place.
I vigorously explained that he had to leave.
(It was necessary to discourage him from ever trying it again.)

 

[Stevicus]

Nope, wrong again, but until we cover your flag errors I will not go any more deeply into this. And you need to apologize for the false claim of lying. That is against the rules here.

Do you believe that everyone is equal before the law? If so, then your assertion about my alleged "tu quoque" fallacy is incorrect. All I said was that citizens have the right to use the court system just as any lawyer does. If you believe that your assertion about my alleged "tu quoque" fallacy is true, then that would imply that you do not believe that everyone is equal before the law. So, which is it? Which one is the lie, and which is the truth?

As far as the rules of the forum are concerned, I believe I have conducted myself appropriately in the context of the discussion and the overall culture of what is permitted here. You yourself made the false claim that I'm a "freeloader," so you're not one to talk about rules or civility. I will apologize for nothing.

Yes, and we need to go over your error. You are obviously wrong in this matter to any reasoning person. You claim to be able to reason, let's see if that is true or not.

Nope, you are not doing that. But again, one error at a time. Flag issue first.




Once again, I don't care about your other errors right now. Flag issue first.

Well, isn't that what I just did?

Flag issue:

You: Gold fringe on a flag is meaningless and has no legal significance.
Sovereign Citizens: Gold fringe on a flag in a courtroom means that the court is under admiralty law.
Me: I don't know either way, but I'd like to be fair to both sides.

So, here we are. This is the flag issue. Let's go over it, shall we? Give it your best shot.

 

[Revoltingest]

**** I couldn't do those things sober, lol.

Booze can be an enabling thing.

 

[Nous]

I was of course being a bit facetious, but nice link nonetheless. Some of the lines about George Bush are ten times more applicable today. Trump is the first president that I would ever call scary. Those before him may have abused their power a bit, and that applies to both sides, but I was never worried about them doing so to excess. I know that if Trump had has way he would pass all sorts of clearly unconstitutional and clearly immoral laws.

Yeah, I only thought George W. Bush was kind of scary. Trump is a whole different matter. And what makes Trump even scarier is currently a Congress that is largely willing to overlook and even sometimes defend his transgressions--not to mention the fact the either he or Pence to appoint scary people to the Court with the consent of Congress. (Though, based on his history on the 10th Circuit, I continue to believe the Gorsuch is going to be a fairly good, non-scary Justice.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe that everyone is equal before the law? If so, then your assertion about my alleged "tu quoque" fallacy is incorrect. All I said was that citizens have the right to use the court system just as any lawyer does. If you believe that your assertion about my alleged "tu quoque" fallacy is true, then that would imply that you do not believe that everyone is equal before the law. So, which is it? Which one is the lie, and which is the truth?

You are wrong again, but as I said, until we go over the issue where you first screwed up I will not deal with your other errors. I will merely point out that you are wrong.

As far as the rules of the forum are concerned, I believe I have conducted myself appropriately in the context of the discussion and the overall culture of what is permitted here. You yourself made the false claim that I'm a "freeloader," so you're not one to talk about rules or civility. I will apologize for nothing.

Did I? I know that I claimed that those that avoid insurance and paying taxes are. But yes, you made a false claim that is clearly against the rules.

Well, isn't that what I just did?

Nope, you have not gone over your errors there or owned up to them.

Flag issue:

You: Gold fringe on a flag is meaningless and has no legal significance.
Sovereign Citizens: Gold fringe on a flag in a courtroom means that the court is under admiralty law.
Me: I don't know either way, but I'd like to be fair to both sides.

And that is foolish and wrong on your part.

So, here we are. This is the flag issue. Let's go over it, shall we? Give it your best shot.

Nope, you merely repeated your error and have not learned yet. Flag issue first.