"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Stevicus]

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

Judges, politicians, bureaucrats, and cops.

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".

They're vaguely written and open to interpretation by whoever has the power to do that. If what you're saying is true, then every legal question would be just as precise as "2+2=4," which is always true. Since that's clearly not the case, then perhaps you should restate what you just wrote here.

I may not know the law as well as you do, but I know enough that it's not as precise as mathematics, yet you're implying that it is, that it's just as valid as any hard science. This is clearly not true, and your attempts to deceive me in this regard will not be successful.

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?

So, you can't answer my argument, and now you're trying to make it about me? Is that it?

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

Just as you do.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

And that's all you've been doing from the very beginning, yet you continually refuse to point out where I've been wrong. At least, try to answer the question, just once. If it helps, I'll even say please answer the question.

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.

I did not.

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

If I said "2+2=5," then it should be quite easy for you to show me where.

And that is foolish and wrong on your part.

Why? I'm not the one making any claims here. All I've said all along is "I don't know." If that's too much for you to bear, then I'm sorry.

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

If you're presuming to be a teacher or some other authority here, then you can dispense with that. You are not my superior, and you have no authority over me.

You sound like a judge who thinks that I'm guilty of contempt of court. Are you or were a judge at some point in your life? Is that what this is all about? That would explain a lot about your attitude.

As for the "flag issue," at least try to ask a question or make some sort of statement that I can respond to. Just saying that I'm wrong over and over like this solves nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Why don’t you know either way? It should be obvious that the claim is completely ignorant of reality.

Here’s one example of an argument about gold fringe - it’s paranoid, idiotic ranting:

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag!

I haven’t checked the legal references they gave, but let’s assume they’re right: that some obscure section of American law says a civilian court isn’t allowed to have fringe on its flag. Does this mean:

1. A minor procedural error has happened, but it really is a civilian court? Or

2. Because of the fringe, the court is actually an admiralty court, not a civilian court, and will make its rulings based on military law?

Any reasonable person would choose answer 1, not 2. And only an idiot would keep choosing answer 2 after hearing it make a ruling based on civilian law.

 

[Nous]

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.

The Patriot Act expired and was replaced by the Freedom Act that President Obama signed into law.

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.

"Many state officials" may have tried to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but none has been successful.

The system of continual rights seems to be working.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that's all you've been doing from the very beginning, yet you continually refuse to point out where I've been wrong. At least, try to answer the question, just once. If it helps, I'll even say please answer the question.

Wrong again, I have explained your errors, you at best did not understand the explanations. I am offering to go over your previous error but you seem bound and determined to run away.

I did not.

We will see.

If I said "2+2=5," then it should be quite easy for you to show me where.

Please, now you are being the dishonest one. At the very least you should be admitting that you do not understand.

Why? I'm not the one making any claims here. All I've said all along is "I don't know." If that's too much for you to bear, then I'm sorry.

No, you went further than that. You said a fool should be accommodated in a court of law, or did you forget that?

If you're presuming to be a teacher or some other authority here, then you can dispense with that. You are not my superior, and you have no authority over me.

I am clearly your superior when it comes to logical thought. I do not have any official authority over you.

You sound like a judge who thinks that I'm guilty of contempt of court. Are you or were a judge at some point in your life? Is that what this is all about? That would explain a lot about your attitude.

No, you have merely been making rather ignorant claims and then refusing to listen to reason or to back them up.

As for the "flag issue," at least try to ask a question or make some sort of statement that I can respond to. Just saying that I'm wrong over and over like this solves nothing.

Then quit running. It is unreasonable to coddle loons.

Let's go over this a point at a time. The people opposing fringe claim that is makes the court not valid. You do understand this don't you?

 

[Stevicus]

Why don’t you know either way?

It should be obvious that the claim is completely ignorant of reality.

Here’s one example of an argument about gold fringe - it’s paranoid, idiotic ranting:

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag!

I haven’t checked the legal references they gave, but let’s assume they’re right: that some obscure section of American law says a civilian court isn’t allowed to have fringe on its flag. Does this mean:

1. A minor procedural error has happened, but it really is a civilian court? Or

2. Because of the fringe, the court is actually an admiralty court, not a civilian court, and will make its rulings based on military law?

Any reasonable person would choose answer 1, not 2. And only an idiot would keep choosing answer 2 after hearing it make a ruling based on civilian law.

The only thing that makes it an issue is that, if it's really as meaningless as is being claimed, then it should be no problem to simply change the flag. The fact that it's become such a HUGE issue and judges obstinately refuse to change it is what makes it even more suspicious. As I said, this is one of those rare opportunities when it be so incredibly EASY to disprove such a "paranoid, idiotic ranting," and yet, instead of simply doing that, some people want to argue about it until they're blue in the face. Why is that?

As to your first question of why I don't know either way, it's because I'm not a judge and I'm not privy to what goes on in the inner circles of power in this country.

Nevertheless, I can't believe that someone would just make something like that up out of the blue. That makes no sense. But even if they are concocting some theory about the flag, it's so simple and easy to prove them wrong, and yet, it seems to strike such a nerve with some people that they'd rather argue and argue and argue about it - rather than simply fulfill the request. It's not like it's some UFO story or religious question that's impossible to prove or disprove either way. This is a question of transparency and whether or not America is truly a "free" country as our leaders say it is.

The problem here is that some people are getting so worked up over minutia, while missing the elephant in the living room.

 

[Nous]

Judges, politicians, bureaucrats, and cops.

Why do you say that judges, politicians, "bureaucrats" and police officers are tyrants? Tell us which ones specifically engaged in tyrannical behavior and got away with it.

They're vaguely written and open to interpretation by whoever has the power to do that. If what you're saying is true, then every legal question would be just as precise as "2+2=4," which is always true. Since that's clearly not the case, then perhaps you should restate what you just wrote here.

I may not know the law as well as you do, but I know enough that it's not as precise as mathematics, yet you're implying that it is, that it's just as valid as any hard science. This is clearly not true, and your attempts to deceive me in this regard will not be successful.

I certainly never said or suggested any such thing as that "the law" is "as precise as mathematics". What a crazy accusation!

The statements of rights in constitutions are often worded in general terms for a reason: so that they can be interpreted as applicable in many different situations and endure in an ever-changing world.

So, you can't answer my argument, and now you're trying to make it about me? Is that it?

What the hell are you talking about? What argument have you made about something?

You claimed that people only have rights sometimes, depending a tyrant's mood. I asked you if any tyrant had deprived you of any right recently. What's wrong with answering my question? If what you claim to be true has never happened to you, then what is the basis of your claim? No one else on this thread has made any such lunatic claim (as far as I've seen).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only thing that makes it an issue is that, if it's really as meaningless as is being claimed, then it should be no problem to simply change the flag. The fact that it's become such a HUGE issue and judges obstinately refuse to change it is what makes it even more suspicious. As I said, this is one of those rare opportunities when it be so incredibly EASY to disprove such a "paranoid, idiotic ranting," and yet, instead of simply doing that, some people want to argue about it until they're blue in the face. Why is that?

You do not understand these people. And that is also an unreasonable burden upon the court.

Do you understand the concept of the burden of proof? By making a claim, and a rather extraordinary claim at that, the person puts the burden of proof upon himself. He wants to change the way that the court is run, he has the duty to show that his claims are correct.

As to your first question of why I don't know either way, it's because I'm not a judge and I'm not privy to what goes on in the inner circles of power in this country.

Nevertheless, I can't believe that someone would just make something like that up out of the blue. That makes no sense. But even if they are concocting some theory about the flag, it's so simple and easy to prove them wrong, and yet, it seems to strike such a nerve with some people that they'd rather argue and argue and argue about it - rather than simply fulfill the request. It's not like it's some UFO story or religious question that's impossible to prove or disprove either way. This is a question of transparency and whether or not America is truly a "free" country as our leaders say it is.

Really? Then you have very limited knowledge of human behavior. People make up all sorts of crazy claims. From the science denial based upon religious beliefs, to Lunar Landing Hoax nuts to 911 Troofers.

And no, this has nothing to do with whether America is a free country or not.

The problem here is that some people are getting so worked up over minutia, while missing the elephant in the living room.

That is the people that you are supporting. It appears that you are going off into conspiracy theory yourself. There is no need for conspiracies for many of the world's ills when people are so apt to screw up.

 

[Nous]

Why don’t you know either way? It should be obvious that the claim is completely ignorant of reality.

Here’s one example of an argument about gold fringe - it’s paranoid, idiotic ranting:

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag!

I haven’t checked the legal references they gave, but let’s assume they’re right: that some obscure section of American law says a civilian court isn’t allowed to have fringe on its flag.

Don't assume that. It's exactly as you put it: paranoid idiotic ranting. Here's the statute that webpage refers to in claiming that gold fringe on flags anywhere constitute "mutilation" (note the limited applicability of the statute):

4 U.S. Code § 3 - Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words “flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.​

4 U.S. Code § 3 - Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

 

[Stevicus]

Wrong again, I have explained your errors, you at best did not understand the explanations. I am offering to go over your previous error but you seem bound and determined to run away.

No, not really. I just couldn't keep up with all the piling on with multiple responses to the same post. And if all you can do is repeat yourself and say "wrong, wrong, wrong" like a broken record, then what's the point of continuing? At least try to develop your arguments and make counter-arguments to my responses. That would at least be more productive than simply gainsaying.

We will see.

Look, you know as well as I do that this forum can and does have heated discussions from time to time. I've mostly enjoyed your contributions here up until now, and I hope that this disagreement over this one issue doesn't come between us in any future discussions.

Please, now you are being the dishonest one. At the very least you should be admitting that you do not understand.

Then show me where. Isn't that reasonable enough for you?

No, you went further than that. You said a fool should be accommodated in a court of law, or did you forget that?

If it's a reasonable accommodation, then I honestly don't see what the problem is. It isn't that big of a deal. But either way, please spare me your opinionated invective about who you think is a "fool," since that's neither relevant nor helpful. That's where you're going too far, and I think you should stop it.

I am clearly your superior when it comes to logical thought. I do not have any official authority over you.

Again, this is just your opinion which has no basis in fact. Again I ask, please spare me your opinions and only deal in facts.

No, you have merely been making rather ignorant claims and then refusing to listen to reason or to back them up.

More opinion.

Then quit running. It is unreasonable to coddle loons.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. Don't you have anything else in your repertoire? Are you going to make fun of my mother next?

Let's go over this a point at a time. The people opposing fringe claim that is makes the court not valid. You do understand this don't you?

"Valid" is only a state of mind. It's a matter of faith in the system. Those who oppose the fringe ostensibly believe that America is not as free as some others might claim. They're not directly saying that the court is not "valid," since obviously the courts do have the backing of the vast numbers of police (and by extension, the military, if necessary). Even the "sovereign citizens" realize this, but they're bucking against the system on purpose just an exercise to demonstrate that the system is not as free or open as what is commonly propagated in this country. You may not like what they're doing, but I see that as a consequence of creating a political and legal system so convoluted, vague, and bureaucratic. I would prefer to look at it as an act of civil disobedience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only thing that makes it an issue is that, if it's really as meaningless as is being claimed, then it should be no problem to simply change the flag. The fact that it's become such a HUGE issue and judges obstinately refuse to change it is what makes it even more suspicious.

Well, as @Nous pointed out, they’re in the wrong when they say that the fringe violates the law in the first place.

I don’t know why you don’t see it (which brings our count up to two), but there are huge problems with a judge indulging requests like this. The accused doesn’t get to boss a judge around. The courts exist to rule on crimes and legal suits, not to indulge requests about the courtroom decor from parties to legal proceedings.

As I said, this is one of those rare opportunities when it be so incredibly EASY to disprove such a "paranoid, idiotic ranting," and yet, instead of simply doing that, some people want to argue about it until they're blue in the face. Why is that?

Lots of people are irrational. If this wasn’t the case, there would be no flat earthers or reiki. This is just one more manifestation of irrationally.

As to your first question of why I don't know either way, it's because I'm not a judge and I'm not privy to what goes on in the inner circles of power in this country.

Shoving feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken. Putting fringe on a flag doesn’t make a civilian court military. You don’t need to be a judge to recognize this.

Nevertheless, I can't believe that someone would just make something like that up out of the blue. That makes no sense.

So every opinion that’s held by some group somewhere must have something going for it?

But even if they are concocting some theory about the flag, it's so simple and easy to prove them wrong, and yet, it seems to strike such a nerve with some people that they'd rather argue and argue and argue about it - rather than simply fulfill the request.

It's not like it's some UFO story or religious question that's impossible to prove or disprove either way. This is a question of transparency and whether or not America is truly a "free" country as our leaders say it is.

The problem here is that some people are getting so worked up over minutia, while missing the elephant in the living room.

It’s perfectly correct and reasonable for a judge to simply deny requests like this without explanation. It’s unreasonable to expect that a judge will expend valuable time and effort on the whims of nutballs that have no bearing on the case being tried or the rights of anyone concerned.

 

[Stevicus]

Why do you say that judges, politicians, "bureaucrats" and police officers are tyrants? Tell us which ones specifically engaged in tyrannical behavior and got away with it.

Oh, there are plenty of instances. Even you have posted about injustices which have occurred. I seem to remember you recently posted about an individual who was wrongly imprisoned for years for a crime he didn't commit. I can't remember where the thread was, but it can and does happen.

I certainly never said or suggested any such thing as that "the law" is "as precise as mathematics". What a crazy accusation!

You said that they were continual and not subject to anyone's mood, as if to imply some level of precision and clarity.

The statements of rights in constitutions are often worded in general terms for a reason: so that they can be interpreted as applicable in many different situations and endure in an ever-changing world.

There's this idea that judges and others who interpret the law are "impartial" and "fair" - and that they're not supposed to bring their own personal feelings into it. But we're all human, and we all have human emotions. To suggest that these very human government officials are somehow above that doesn't strike me as all that true.

What the hell are you talking about? What argument have you made about something?

You claimed that people only have rights sometimes, depending a tyrant's mood. I asked you if any tyrant had deprived you of any right recently. What's wrong with answering my question? If what you claim to be true has never happened to you, then what is the basis of your claim? No one else on this thread has made any such lunatic claim (as far as I've seen).

The idea of having "rights" is fluid. That's how most people replied in a similar thread in which I asked "What is a right?" They may very well be correct, but what it means is that it's based on whatever some judge or group of judges may decide collectively. It's not etched in stone, and rights are not self-evident or endowed by some "Creator." This is more of a political and philosophical question, not really a matter of legal procedure. My argument here is that there should be greater clarity and transparency on how the government deals with the governed. It shouldn't be so vague or nebulous that only those with a Harvard law degree are given credentials to talk about it or question it (while everyone among the "Great Unwashed" is dismissed as a loon). If that's the case, then we might as well go back to being ruled by Papal fiat where only priests, bishops, and cardinals have power. But I think we can advance beyond that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not really. I just couldn't keep up with all the piling on with multiple responses to the same post. And if all you can do is repeat yourself and say "wrong, wrong, wrong" like a broken record, then what's the point of continuing? At least try to develop your arguments and make counter-arguments to my responses. That would at least be more productive than simply gainsaying.

Then narrow your focus. Or admit that you screwed up.

Look, you know as well as I do that this forum can and does have heated discussions from time to time. I've mostly enjoyed your contributions here up until now, and I hope that this disagreement over this one issue doesn't come between us in any future discussions.

I don't tend to hold a grudge.

Then show me where. Isn't that reasonable enough for you?

I have done that.

If it's a reasonable accommodation, then I honestly don't see what the problem is. It isn't that big of a deal. But either way, please spare me your opinionated invective about who you think is a "fool," since that's neither relevant nor helpful. That's where you're going too far, and I think you should stop it.

But it simply is not. By the same standards your example of a pink bathrobe is a "reasonable accommodation". And not only do they want to deny cases that they are in, but past cases that affect them. This is about as far from a "reasonable accommodation" as one can get.

Again, this is just your opinion which has no basis in fact. Again I ask, please spare me your opinions and only deal in facts.

Nope, you have posted quite a few logical flaws here.

More opinion.

Wrong again.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. Don't you have anything else in your repertoire? Are you going to make fun of my mother next?

Wrong again. Once more I must remind you that if you do not understand then you need to ask questions politely and properly.

"Valid" is only a state of mind. It's a matter of faith in the system. Those who oppose the fringe ostensibly believe that America is not as free as some others might claim. They're not directly saying that the court is not "valid," since obviously the courts do have the backing of the vast numbers of police (and by extension, the military, if necessary). Even the "sovereign citizens" realize this, but they're bucking against the system on purpose just an exercise to demonstrate that the system is not as free or open as what is commonly propagated in this country. You may not like what they're doing, but I see that as a consequence of creating a political and legal system so convoluted, vague, and bureaucratic. I would prefer to look at it as an act of civil disobedience.

Please, when you need to go to lengths to justify your own nonsense you only underscore your failure.

 

[Stevicus]

You do not understand these people.

I also don't understand fascists.

And that is also an unreasonable burden upon the court.

No, it's not, and you haven't said thing one to demonstrate otherwise.

Do you understand the concept of the burden of proof?

Asked and answered.

By making a claim, and a rather extraordinary claim at that, the person puts the burden of proof upon himself. He wants to change the way that the court is run, he has the duty to show that his claims are correct.

The court is making a claim as well. Since they're the ones with the power over life and death (and not the "sovereign citizens"), then the heavier burden of proof is on them.

Really? Then you have very limited knowledge of human behavior.

There you go again.

People make up all sorts of crazy claims. From the science denial based upon religious beliefs, to Lunar Landing Hoax nuts to 911 Troofers.

Yes, and there are all kinds of people who go out of their way to make disingenuous, faux psychoanalyses rather than dealing with the issue. It's called "deflection."

And no, this has nothing to do with whether America is a free country or not.

It has everything to do with it. That's the whole reason that "sovereign citizens" do what they do. They're offering a challenge to the political leadership to prove that their statements about the kind of government we have are true. You do understand the concept of burden of proof, don't you? That's all it is.

All the sovereign citizens are doing is forcing the government's hand and making them put their money where their mouth is. It really doesn't bother me, because it's no skin off me. Why should I care what they do?

I don't even care all that much if America is a free country. My position on that has been consistent. I only believe that if someone does a fair day's work, they should get a fair and equitable share of America's collective resources in return. I don't advocate freeloading at all, which you suggested earlier. No one should get more than they deserve, and that's especially true for the wealthy, who have taken far more from America than they have put back. Their only real advantage is that they can game the system and hire high-priced lawyers for whom judges bend over backwards to accommodate, just so they can get away with taking more than they deserve.

That is the people that you are supporting. It appears that you are going off into conspiracy theory yourself. There is no need for conspiracies for many of the world's ills when people are so apt to screw up.

See, this is where you grossly misunderstand me and my position. I don't really support sovereign citizens at all. Politically, they're on the opposite end of the spectrum from where my views are. Most of them are on the right wing and want nothing to do with any of my "commie crap" (as one of them once told me). However, I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude in that these people cause a great deal of consternation, ruffled feathers, and bruised egos for cops, judges, and others of that ilk. They're the ones pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, while you and others in this thread are falling all over yourselves to try to convince me that the emperor does have clothes on. That's the gambit you've been playing all along, and I see through it.

 

[Stevicus]

Then narrow your focus. Or admit that you screwed up.

If and when you ever deign to show it to me, I might just do that. You say that you have already done that, but where? At least give me a post number. So much has been written in this back-and-forth, I might have missed it.

But it simply is not. By the same standards your example of a pink bathrobe is a "reasonable accommodation". And not only do they want to deny cases that they are in, but past cases that affect them. This is about as far from a "reasonable accommodation" as one can get.

The "pink bathrobe" remark was just a quip, and that would be unreasonable. Changing from one flag to another is hardly that big a deal. You yourself even stated that a defendant has a right to purchase a flag without gold fringe and bring it into the courtroom.

Besides, a flag without gold fringe is cheaper. (Indoor American Flags) It would be a cost-saving measure and save the taxpayers some money. Isn't that a good enough reason?

Nope, you have posted quite a few logical flaws here.

You say.

Wrong again.

You say.

Wrong again. Once more I must remind you that if you do not understand then you need to ask questions politely and properly.

I have tried, but you keep refusing to answer them and insist on insulting me, while falsely claiming that I have insulted you. Why can't you just stick with the issues and stop gainsaying?

Please, when you need to go to lengths to justify your own nonsense you only underscore your failure.

What I wrote is far more substantial than your broken record of "wrong again." Adults generally speak with a more advanced vocabulary and use more complex sentences than simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong."

 

[Subduction Zone]

[


No, it's not, and you haven't said thing one to demonstrate otherwise.

It is and your inability to understand why does not mean that others have not demonstrated this for you.

Asked and answered.

Wrong again.

The court is making a claim as well. Since they're the ones with the power over life and death (and not the "sovereign citizens"), then the heavier burden of proof is on them.

The court has had those flags forever. There claim is ordinary. The claim against those flags is extraordinary and loony to say the least. They put the burden of proof upon themselves.

Now it appears that you do not understand the burden of proof.

There you go again.

Once again, don't blame me for your flaws.

Yes, and there are all kinds of people who go out of their way to make disingenuous, faux psychoanalyses rather than dealing with the issue. It's called "deflection."

Lucky me, that clearly does not apply to me. But you might want to borrow a mirror.

It has everything to do with it. That's the whole reason that "sovereign citizens" do what they do. They're offering a challenge to the political leadership to prove that their statements about the kind of government we have are true. You do understand the concept of burden of proof, don't you? That's all it is.

But as others have shown you that challenge has been shown to be bogus. Can you be honest enough to admit that there is no such order?

All the sovereign citizens are doing is forcing the government's hand and making them put their money where their mouth is. It really doesn't bother me, because it's no skin off me. Why should I care what they do?

Once again you are not being honest about these people.

I don't even care all that much if America is a free country. My position on that has been consistent. I only believe that if someone does a fair day's work, they should get a fair and equitable share of America's collective resources in return. I don't advocate freeloading at all, which you suggested earlier. No one should get more than they deserve, and that's especially true for the wealthy, who have taken far more from America than they have put back. Their only real advantage is that they can game the system and hire high-priced lawyers for whom judges bend over backwards to accommodate, just so they can get away with taking more than they deserve.

You are wandering off topic again.

See, this is where you grossly misunderstand me and my position. I don't really support sovereign citizens at all. Politically, they're on the opposite end of the spectrum from where my views are. Most of them are on the right wing and want nothing to do with any of my "commie crap" (as one of them once told me). However, I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude in that these people cause a great deal of consternation, ruffled feathers, and bruised egos for cops, judges, and others of that ilk. They're the ones pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, while you and others in this thread are falling all over yourselves to try to convince me that the emperor does have clothes on. That's the gambit you've been playing all along, and I see through it.

But they don't. They are mere laughing stocks. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Right now you are rather entertaining in your rather lame attempts to defend these people, nothing more. They do clog the courts a bit.. They are not bruising any egos. But they are costing you and me money. Not much on an individual basis, but they are doing that. Soon You appear to have a problem with the system. It is not perfect, but it actually works rather well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The idea of having "rights" is fluid. That's how most people replied in a similar thread in which I asked "What is a right?" They may very well be correct, but what it means is that it's based on whatever some judge or group of judges may decide collectively. It's not etched in stone, and rights are not self-evident or endowed by some "Creator." This is more of a political and philosophical question, not really a matter of legal procedure. My argument here is that there should be greater clarity and transparency on how the government deals with the governed. It shouldn't be so vague or nebulous that only those with a Harvard law degree are given credentials to talk about it or question it (while everyone among the "Great Unwashed" is dismissed as a loon).

Not everyone in the “Great Unwashed” is a loon; only the loons.

If that's the case, then we might as well go back to being ruled by Papal fiat where only priests, bishops, and cardinals have power. But I think we can advance beyond that.

Hypothetical scenario: an acquaintance breaches a contract with you, which costs you a large amount of money. You can’t resolve the issue informally, so you decide you want to sue.

If you knew that the judge would spend weeks listening to quibbles from the defendant about fringe on flags and other irrelevant details, and you knew that you would have to pay your lawyer in advance to sit through all of it, would you be more or less likely to actually sue?

And assuming you were truly, significantly wronged, would your decision not to sue help or hurt the cause of justice?

That’s the real issue here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If and when you ever deign to show it to me, I might just do that. You say that you have already done that, but where? At least give me a post number. So much has been written in this back-and-forth, I might have missed it.

So now we can add being disingenuous to your tactics.

The "pink bathrobe" remark was just a quip, and that would be unreasonable. Changing from one flag to another is hardly that big a deal. You yourself even stated that a defendant has a right to purchase a flag without gold fringe and bring it into the courtroom.

Changing from a black robe to a pink robe is hardly that big a deal. And no, I offered that as a solution. I never claimed that he had that right. But even that was not good enough for you. At that point you demonstrated that you could not deal with this reasonably.

Besides, a flag without gold fringe is cheaper. (Indoor American Flags) It would be a cost-saving measure and save the taxpayers some money. Isn't that a good enough reason?

Nope. Being force to make a fashion change because of a series of nuts is tyranny, rather mild tyranny, but that is what it would be. I am sure there are cheaper robes that a judge could be made to wear. There are times to save money and there are times not to. The savings would be so small as to be unnoticeable.

You say.

You need to do better than this. But then you simply can't own up to your loss here.

I have tried, but you keep refusing to answer them and insist on insulting me, while falsely claiming that I have insulted you. Why can't you just stick with the issues and stop gainsaying?

Correcting ignorant errors is not "insulting". And since I have already refuted your nonsense "gainsaying" is all that is needed. Once again, don't blame others for your flaws.

What I wrote is far more substantial than your broken record of "wrong again." Adults generally speak with a more advanced vocabulary and use more complex sentences than simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong."

Nope, your errors have been explained to you not just by me, but by others as well. At this point you have only earned "gainsaying".


Try to narrow your focus. One claim per post. You won't learn if you don't do that.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If and when you ever deign to show it to me, I might just do that. You say that you have already done that, but where? At least give me a post number. So much has been written in this back-and-forth, I might have missed it.



The "pink bathrobe" remark was just a quip, and that would be unreasonable. Changing from one flag to another is hardly that big a deal. You yourself even stated that a defendant has a right to purchase a flag without gold fringe and bring it into the courtroom.

Besides, a flag without gold fringe is cheaper. (Indoor American Flags) It would be a cost-saving measure and save the taxpayers some money. Isn't that a good enough reason?



You say.



You say.



I have tried, but you keep refusing to answer them and insist on insulting me, while falsely claiming that I have insulted you. Why can't you just stick with the issues and stop gainsaying?



What I wrote is far more substantial than your broken record of "wrong again." Adults generally speak with a more advanced vocabulary and use more complex sentences than simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong."

Why is a pink bathrobe less reasonable than a fringeless flag? Specifically?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is a pink bathrobe less reasonable than a fringeless flag? Specifically?

Because