|
So, Watching sovereign citizens on the 'tube leaves me with some questions. Their lunacy isn't coming from a vacuum, and I see several themes repeated which makes me wonder where they are getting this poo poo from. Specifically, I see the following over and over:
This poo poo is too common - it's gotta come from somewhere. The wiki on sov cits is full of court cites that are against them, but short on sources as to where this poo poo is coming from. I find myself curious.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
If I just say the magic words then everything will be okay, I say as I suck on my thumb and hug my blankie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
LongSack posted:
It's crazy and not true, hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
LongSack posted:So, Watching sovereign citizens on the 'tube leaves me with some questions. Their lunacy isn't coming from a vacuum, and I see several themes repeated which makes me wonder where they are getting this poo poo from. Specifically, I see the following over and over: My ego is the only yardstick of morality I respect, I'm above the law and I'm entitled to do as I damned well please. I hope this has clarified matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Historically I'd say it can be traced back to Flesh and blood defenses. Look it up, it's a fascinating read. Also depressing. Also the above response sounds snarky, and is, but there's more than a grain of truth. Law has its own cosified, ossigied rituals, which could and sometimes do sound like magic incantation. Some people dont understand them, are scared or co fused and try to fight back with gibberish they found online. They are desperate. Then there's also idiots who think they have found the cheat code to Law. They get tased and the world is good. That said, even if their incantations are gibberish I feel they have a noxious effect in that some ppl will mistake following the ACLU's advice with sovciticenry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
You want Meads v Meads. The judge took it upon himself to compile a fairly comprehensive tome of sovcit ideas, methods, and sources, which has since been used to shut down other sovcits in Canada. It's not entirely comprehensive, and sovcits are always coming up with more bullshit, but it's the best there is. The short version: sovict beliefs come from a diversity of sources, there's no single text. The common theme is desperate, uneducated people constructing a cargo cult version of legal systems that they believe will give them what they want. And some people sell membership in that cult. The case I linked provides details on how all of the beliefs you mentioned were derived. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
I think the psychological views on the origins presented thus far come close but aren't right either. Poor, exploited people are smart enough to recognize when they are getting hosed over and that a different standard of justice seems to apply to them vs other, better off people. As opposed to complex ideas that provide no immediate benefit (like intersectionality) they opt for a simple idea that does provide immediate benefit. It's wrong but if you look at the information they have and how the system works, it's not hard to figure out why they'd opt for that path.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the conspiracy-theory aspect of SovCit beliefs. There is Big Lies (JOHN SMITH vs. John Smith, Gold-fringed flags, etc) that the Man has been using to keep the sheep in line; as a Sovereign Citizen you are one of the select few who have achieved enlightenment and therefore the Man is powerless to stop you. SovCits are Unknown Armies as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
My question is if even if Sovereign Citizens think they've stumbled onto the truth and know the rituals that will grant them freedom, why do they think the powers that be will allow it? What's stopping them from just going "Nice try, but you're hosed anyway" especially in light of their view that the law is a twisting of original intent and a conspiracy designed specifically to destroy them? Do they think it's like true names in folklore and when invoked the demon judges and their infernalist police minions are powerless?
Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
I could tell you the answer OP, but I refuse to create joinder with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:My question is if even if Sovereign Citizens think they've stumbled onto the truth and know the rituals that will grant them freedom, why do they think the powers that be will allow it? What's stopping them from just going "Nice try, but you're hosed anyway" especially in light of their view that the law is a twisting of original intent and a conspiracy designed specifically to destroy them? Do they think it's like true names in folklore and when invoked the demon judges and their infernalist police minions are powerless? Ever seen a movie or a tv show where through clever wording and interpretation of a law a lawyer gets someone out of jail time? And no one can refute them because theyre technically "right"? Sovereign citizens are trying to invoke that sort of logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
It's a scam that originates in white nationalist militias, although some of the ideas come from pre-existing white power fringe groups like LaRouchites. The father of modern sovcit/free man woo is Roger Elvick, who turned white nationalist libertarian ideas into an actual tax evasion plan that he sold in the 80s. (He went to prison for tax evasion in 1990.) He got away with it for long enough to inspire copycats, and it's just spread through the fringe since then. It's not illegal to sell (most versions of) the scam, anyone who tries it and fails is already such a fringe loser that nobody much notices their plight, and tax evasion is something you can get away with for a long time before anyone does anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
As for specific stuff: LongSack posted:Specifically, I see the following over and over: A lot of versions of sovcit woo are based in the idea that laws only apply to people who consent to be subject to them, and you can opt out somehow. (Contrast this with the real legal principle that you have certain rights against search and seizure: sovcits also like "Am I being detained?" and "I do not consent to a search" but that's actually a thing normal people occasionally have reason to say too.) "Joinder" for sovcits is their completely bullshit idea of consenting to join their sovereign nature to the sovereign nation of the USA. Almost every sovcit idea comes back to this. They want to insist they are a special class of people that aren't subject to laws they find inconvenient. Occasionally they also layer an extra insistence that the government / UN / illuminati / World Bank / IMF / Jews owe them multiple millions of dollars for convoluted nonsense reasons, too. quote:
This is based in two sovcit ideas, and could be referring to either or both. First, sovereign citizens think admiralty court is some much less (or more) restrictive legal system separate from the regular old legal system, and seek to be subject to (or avoid being subject to) it whenever possible. Therefore, they place inordinate emphasis on trying to describe themselves as travelers or ship captains or boats or what the gently caress ever. Second, sovcits like to invent new rights that override local laws, or just inflate old ones. Freedom of travel is an actual thing under real-world normal person American law, but sovcits try to say it means they're immune to whatever laws they want while exercising that right. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Ever seen a movie or a tv show where through clever wording and interpretation of a law a lawyer gets someone out of jail time? And no one can refute them because theyre technically "right"? Sovereign citizens are trying to invoke that sort of logic. Which is kind of sad, because in most cases there's no "trick" that lawyer use to win cases, it's usually just law. The most common "dirty tactic" a lawyer uses, at least from my own experience, is attempting to manipulate or present the facts in a way beneficial to your case (pound the facts etc.). An example of this would be the core principle of legality, for instance in a recent case: A "public" incitement of racial violence in "published" "written" form is banned. What does the law mean by this? Is writing on a message board "published" and/or "written"? Not in the natural understanding of the wording of the statute, according to the national supreme court. But why does that matter? Can't the judge just use common sense? It should be included, right? Well no. A core function of the principle of legality is that a law that can punish a person must be codified in such a way that the average person can read, understand and predictably know what will happen if they break the law. This is a central right in any modern justice system, to be properly forewarned that breaking the law as everyone understands it gets you punished. So, aquittal, and the law was reworded as a consequence to account for the internet being a thing, which is how (and often just about how slowly) the law adapts to changing times. Is this a trick? No, absolutely not. It's how the system works. However, if you don't know about the core principles behind such a ruling, a layman lacking higher education might read about such a verdict in a paper or see it on TV, and conclude that due to magic lawyerly trickery this one thing that clearly makes sense ought to be punished isn't, so you can magic your way out of other stuff too, surely? Throw in a healthy dose of hatred for ivory tower intellectuals, "left wing" news media and personal rationalizations and Sov. Cits. start making... well, not sense, exactly, but you can see how that could happen. I've had a few clients who have been insistant on logic-ing their way out of legal trouble. It's hard to dissuade. It's also annoying to have your advice ignored, like I had to spend 7 years in school and associate's practice to get a licence to practice law and and all of that was just fairy dust and unicorn farts that can be logic-ed over by a retail worker? Really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:First, sovereign citizens think admiralty court is some much less (or more) restrictive legal system separate from the regular old legal system, and seek to be subject to (or avoid being subject to) it whenever possible. Therefore, they place inordinate emphasis on trying to describe themselves as travelers or ship captains or boats or what the gently caress ever. That reminds me of another thing sov cits try and do when they are in a court room. They have a belief that if the flag present in the court room has a gold fringe on the outside it is actually the flag of an admiralty court, which makes any verdict rendered against them null if they are being tried by the rules of a county/state/federal court since it lacks the proper authority to try you for the charges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Tying the white nationalism with Freeman on the Land, there are original US Citizens, who have these powers and "14th Amendment" citizens, who do not. Original citizens can, for example, refuse to create joinder but 14th Amendment citizens (since they are citizens only by fiat) cannot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Tying the white nationalism with Freeman on the Land, there are original US Citizens, who have these powers and "14th Amendment" citizens, who do not. Not all sovcit scams subscribe to this, mind. There's versions that drop the racism or even replace it with black nationalism, as well as fake native tribes in both aimed at white people and aimed at native people versions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
this is the best one. a judge who keeps talking to the same sovcit over traffic violations really digs down into the dude's terminology and tries to pick it apart from the inside https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7h7uevwxt8
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
The article linked below is by JJ MacNab, a writer who specializes in domestic extremist groups, and who is basically the national sovcit expert. It and the linked guides to sovcit language should be a more approachable intro to the subject than the court ruling I linked earlier. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/sovereign-citizen-kane Also feel free to join us in the Bundy thread in C-SPAM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Right of Travel is an implied Constitutional right that is the foundation for a lot of modern law like residency requirements being illegal for voting purposes or hospital care. In the era before cars it also guaranteed free access to public roads via whatever vehicle a citizen wanted to use, and the courts frequently struck down any government licensing requirements as impeding the right of travel. After the car hit it big judges quickly worked out that the public interest lay with requiring licenses to operate a car on public roads, both in terms of safety and in terms of maintaining and expanding roadways. Now the courts and established law are firmly in favor of licensing and laws governing public travel. Sovcits believe they can render the police and courts powerless by invoking the old rites and claiming they are Traveling, which any citizen can do with any vehicle on public roads (in the 1800s). E: Joinder is a weird rear end extreme libertarian theory that all interactions between people can be expressed in terms of contract law, and if you refuse to enter into a contract with another person by denying 'joinder' then anything they do to you is illegal under whatever law system they ascribe to, usually some form of 'common law'. This is also what people screaming 'YOU BROKE THE NAP' are referring to; the idea that the natural state of humanity is a non-aggression pact (NAP) between everyone that requires explicit legal contracts to do anything. Most sovcits are sadsacks trying to fight back against an arcane legal system by exploiting 'loopholes' that they treat like magic spells. But to be fair to the untrained the actual law can look like a bunch of magic spells that make no sense, so theres a kind of broken logic there. A few sovcits though are real smug fuckers who think they are too smart for the law to apply to them and theyve found how to manipulate the system and outsmart everyone, and watching them get schooled is always gratifying. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Sovcit logic makes a lot more sense when placed back into its original context of hardcore anti-Semitism. The idea that there is a separate legal system that ignores all the commonplace laws and holds millions of dollars in your name works a lot better when you have "Jewish bankers secretly rule the world" as the how and why. Elvick wasn't just selling a tax scam. He was also selling a "practical" implementation of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
LongSack posted:So, Watching sovereign citizens on the 'tube leaves me with some questions. Their lunacy isn't coming from a vacuum, and I see several themes repeated which makes me wonder where they are getting this poo poo from. Specifically, I see the following over and over: Most of it comes from scammers, fraudsters, and extreme libertarians who would sell them to anyone willing to pay. Most of it traces back to a few early sovcit gurus, with plenty of later copycats selling knockoffs or adding bits. Generally, most sovcit principles come down to a basic claim that, for one reason or another (different strains of sovcit thought have claimed a wide variety of reasons), US federal law doesn't actually apply to ordinary citizens unless they implicitly accept its authority, and that the entire justice system is just an excessively convoluted government conspiracy to fool unknowing Americans into surrendering their immunity and voluntarily accepting federal law. To them, court is just an elaborate game of chicken, where the judge will repeatedly try to trick or threaten or bluff them into accepting federal authority, except that sovcits believe that a wide variety of innocent things (like the person's legal name or the use of the word "driving") are actually clever ways to mislead them into accepting federal authority, which they counter by using magic words and phrases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Thanks, all. Enlightening and gives me a few places to go. Appreciate it
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
LongSack posted:So, Watching sovereign citizens on the 'tube leaves me with some questions. Their lunacy isn't coming from a vacuum, and I see several themes repeated which makes me wonder where they are getting this poo poo from. Specifically, I see the following over and over: Some people touched on the main points already and that is literal crazy people/extremely gullible people believing bizarre things. Note that sov cit nonsense often overlaps with conspiracy theory wackiness, far right wing nonsense, and extreme libertarianism. There's an underlying logic to it even though it's pretty much guaranteed to be based on false premises. A lot of it of course comes from the previously mentioned frauds and scam artists who just want to exploit stupidity for a quick buck. The first bit of universal logic is that they believe that there are magic words you can say to make the government do your bidding. The believe that they have obtained Forbidden Knowledge that allows them to bind the genie to their will, as it were. If you say the right things than the judge, police officer, government, authority, or whoever has no choice but to let you do whatever you please. The other common one is that they're basically rules lawyering everything to hell and back. Now anybody that isn't bug gently caress crazy understands that governments prefer to create legal systems that actually function and thus aren't likely to let insane loopholes last for very long. However, they believe that there are loopholes everywhere that if you have the right Forbidden Knowledge you can abuse. The "I'm not driving I'm travelling" one is the most obvious. Now, the U.N. has declared that one of the fundamental human rights is the freedom to travel without restriction within your nations borders. Because of that I could get up and leave for California right now if I wanted. Sov cits rules lawyered that to mean "the government cannot restrict how I travel in any way." Since you have the right to move from place to place you obviously have a inherent right to drive a car and absolutely nothing can take it away. Now, you and I know that that is a literally insane thing to believe for a lot of reasons. We don't want people who are blind, drunk, or suffering from severe dementia to drive. We don't want people who haven't the faintest clue how to operate a car driving. Just letting anybody jump into a plane and fly it because "well can't restrict his right to travel!" is just asking for deaths by plane crash. It's really one of those moments where they're trying to be technically right in a way that completely violates the rules. Nobody is saying that I can't go to California whenever I want. What they're saying is that I can't fly myself there because I have no drat clue how to fly a plane. The "I do not consent to joinder" has a lot of origins. Joinder basically means that two entities are connected legally somehow. Sov cits try to use this to get the law to just plain not apply to them. Think about popular sovereignty; the idea there is that a government must have a society's consent to govern them. So they believe that if you just say "I don't consent to be government by you" they can just do whatever they drat please. That's why they use the term "sovereign" or say "free man on the land." They believe that it's tyranny and oppression if they are forced to follow the rules of a government. Because of that they can just say "I don't consent to be governed by you" and welp, that's that! Guess we can't arrest him, he didn't consent to joinder between himself and the U.S. government! They believe that they can get away with this by more rules lawyering. They believe that various random things like how their name is written on their birth certificates lets them say that they weren't ACTUALLY ever made legally connected to their legal person so their physical person can't be restrained or ruled in any way. Any lawsuits are applied to, for example, the legal person of TOXICSLURPEE but not the physical person ToxicSlurpee so the physical person of me can't be directly affected legally. You can sue the legal person TOXICSLURPEE all you want but if I don't consent to joinder between TOXICSLURPEE and ToxicSlurpee then welp, guess that doesn't apply to me as I am the physical person totally separate from that legal entity. These beliefs are often justified by the fact that the legal system isn't perfect and sometimes blatantly guilty people just walk. There must be some loophole. Similarly they believe that powerful people would never, ever create laws without creating loopholes for themselves to be totally above them. While there's some truth to that and politicians or authorities are sometimes above the law in various ways (it is illegal if I lock somebody in a jail; it is not illegal for a policeman and a judge to convict somebody of a crime and do the same if they follow the process) there just isn't a set of very easy magic words you can say in court* that lets you get away with everything you please. If there were as soon as they got out they'd get changed. Fact is whenever you have a small group powerful enough to absolve themselves of all responsibility to the law and make themselves immune to prosecution they absolutely won't share that and it won't be as simple as "booga booga booga gold fringe admirality court I get to go home." It's very common that sov cits think of themselves are super intelligent masterminds far above the rest of us rabble that are smart enough to find Forbidden Knowledge that lets them bind and control the government the way a wizard binds and controls a demon. * "I am a billionaire with very expensive lawyers" being an exception, it seems. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
The root theory of sovereign citizens is that, upon the repealing of the gold standard, the US Government turned every citizen into a corporation, secretly invested millions of dollars into each individual corporation, and now uses the millions invested in that corporation as collateral in taking on national debt. Even if that were 100% literally the truth, surely the government would still have the authority to, say, arrest your person for, say, murdering 40 people, right? But that's where you're wrong. See, the US Government only has jurisdiction over "citizens", and the abolition of the gold standard meant that "citizens" were replaced by corporations representing individual persons. But that's crazy, you say. Cops still have the authority to arrest non-citizens for, say, murdering 40 people. But you'd be wrong. See, you can't hold a corporation responsible for a crime by jailing the corporation. You'd bring a lawsuit. And you can deduct any damages from my secret government investment account, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:The root theory of sovereign citizens is that, upon the repealing of the gold standard, the US Government turned every citizen into a corporation, secretly invested millions of dollars into each individual corporation, and now uses the millions invested in that corporation as collateral in taking on national debt. Oh good lord I knew about the corporations thing but that's what some of them actually believe? I can never seem to keep up with all the crazy shenanigans these people think up. Most of what I've seen is "I'm not driving I'm travelling" and "I DO NOT CONSENT TO JOINDER!!!!!" and...that's it, really. Occasionally you'll read about a court case where somebody points out the gold fringe on the flag and goes "this is an admirality court and you aren't trying me under admirality law so you hosed up and I get to go.  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Oh good lord I knew about the corporations thing but that's what some of them actually believe? SovCits aren't exactly consistent-Moors think that Diplomatic Immunity gives them immunity from all laws; Freemen on the Land in other countries can't blame FDR for usurping our government. But the whole "corporate/person" conspiracy is the foundation of almost every SovCit conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Oh good lord I knew about the corporations thing but that's what some of them actually believe? The bit about secret government accounts in each American's name is a bit of an offshoot, more of an add-on to sovcit ideology than a core aspect. It's pretty solidly from the "scammer and fraudster" side of things, since the conclusion it leads to is almost always either "the government secretly owes you millions of dollars it put in a secret account you didn't know you had" or "you don't really have to pay any fines or damages, because you can just direct the government to take it from your secret government account, at least if you know it exists".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The bit about secret government accounts in each American's name is a bit of an offshoot, more of an add-on to sovcit ideology than a core aspect. It's pretty solidly from the "scammer and fraudster" side of things, since the conclusion it leads to is almost always either "the government secretly owes you millions of dollars it put in a secret account you didn't know you had" or "you don't really have to pay any fines or damages, because you can just direct the government to take it from your secret government account, at least if you know it exists". historically it's not an offshoot - it was core to Roger Elvick's "Redemption movement", and almost all sovcit ideas are based on his. the government account and the specific $630K figure are part of the redemption in the game. a lot of later variations dropped it because it's absolutely bonkers and an openly anti-semitic conspiracy theory, granted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Oh good lord I knew about the corporations thing but that's what some of them actually believe? Its a bit like Scientology. There are crazies who legitimately believe all of the secret corporation thing, but the rank and file are just shouting spells some huckster taught them to try and get out of a traffic ticket or paying their taxes. Just because your weird aunt picked up Dianetics and wants to empower herself through auditing or whatever doesn't necessarily mean shes onboard with Xenu blowing up a volcano or whatever stupid thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
You know how pseudoscience is stuff that sounds scientific but has no empirical support? Sov cit is just stuff that sounds like legal advice but has never been upheld in court, so it's basically the same thing. There's probably a market for combining the two so you can get people to tell judges that sending them to jail would decrease the entropy of the courtroom and violate the laws of physics. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
The judge in Meads v Meads really summed it up nicely:quote:[77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer. It's the legal equivalent of faith healing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The judge in Meads v Meads really summed it up nicely: I love that ruling so much I sometimes read it just for fun. An interesting thought experiement is the treatment of a person who's renounced his citizenship (as a sov.cit. tactic, I'd assume) and been successful in doing so. It is actually possible to do so in the US, and even become stateless which is what a lot of these people think that they kind-of-sort-of are. In short, if you are stateless you are entitled to none of the benefits and rights of a citizen of a country, with the notable exception of universal human rights which do not technically require a nationality. You are, however, subject to every law - especially criminal law - which does not require citizenship in that country. You are essentially a voluntary refugee, but without a country of origin: You can then, in theory, be detained indefinitely for deportation - but you can't be deported because you don't have a country to go to. You can't get an ID, passport, driver's licence, or anything requiring a SSN. This is sort of the ultimate consequence of SovCit logic, as they consider their personhood separate from their "legal person" (not the right concept, but whatever) and that "legal person" is the citizen, which is to say that their actual person isn't a citizen. It's obviously not that simple, though. I wonder if there are any SovCits who were persuaded to try that in the US. I'd imagine the state department being pretty clear on how stupid that would be, though, and pretty much no other country allows you to become stateless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
There's a relatively famous Bitcoiner who did just that (and more or less permanently hosed himself in so doing), but the problem is that renouncing your citizenship requires that you demonstrate the ability to leave the US as soon as you do so. Most sovereign citizens are trying to beat fines, tax debts, loan liens, etc. so they can't really afford what's involved.
Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
There's only one good Sov cit
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
I'll just note that the IRS is so sick of this poo poo that they have a whole primer on "frivolous tax arguments" and they can fine you for using them. https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:There's a relatively famous Bitcoiner who did just that (and more or less permanently hosed himself in so doing), but the problem is that renouncing your citizenship requires that you demonstrate the ability to leave the US as soon as you do so. Most sovereign citizens are trying to beat fines, tax debts, loan liens, etc. so they can't really afford what's involved. One real problem with sovcits is that they want to keep all the benefits of society but not have to pay for them. Notice how they want to pay no taxes but still want to use public roads or live in a safe country. Taxes kind of pay for those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:SovCits aren't exactly consistent-Moors think that Diplomatic Immunity gives them immunity from all laws; Freemen on the Land in other countries can't blame FDR for usurping our government. But the whole "corporate/person" conspiracy is the foundation of almost every SovCit conspiracy. lol wonder what they think about citizen's united
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One real problem with sovcits is that they want to keep all the benefits of society but not have to pay for them. Notice how they want to pay no taxes but still want to use public roads or live in a safe country. Taxes kind of pay for those things. You've discovered the problem with libertarians in general. They want all of the protections afforded by society and absolutely non of the costs or responsibilities that go along with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:44
|
|