"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Stevicus]

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 think they're saying that. Their actual claim is that the gold fringe symbolizes a different kind of law than what a civilian court is claiming.

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.

It's just a flag. The judge is claiming that the flag having or not having gold fringe doesn't mean anything, but if that's true, then the solution is quite obvious and easy. I don't know why you can't see it. It's just a flag, isn't it? Or does it mean more than what anyone is willing to admit?

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.

They're not bossing the judge around. They're making a simple request, no different than any other motion or request made of a judge, such as a change of venue. Changing a flag is far easier than 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.

True, although my point is, this is such an incredibly easy thing to remedy. Simply change the flag.

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.

The sovereign citizen might argue that the reason a judge would be so adamant in refusing to change to a flag without gold fringe is because he/she is under strict orders to not do that. Again, I don't know if that's true or not, but by the same token, I don't know that it's not true. The only way to know for certain is to find a judge willing to change to a different flag and see what happens.

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

In the absence of clear accessible evidence to prove something either way, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's just the kind of person I am. That's why I'm relatively tolerant of people with different beliefs, even if I don't hold those beliefs. I respect religionists and their beliefs, although I will resist strongly whenever they try to impose those beliefs upon others. That's where I draw the line. I also feel the same way about commercial speech and those who try to take money from others. I have my limits, which I regard as reasonable. But if there's no evident harm involved in it, then sure, why not?

I feel the same way about CTers vs. LNers regarding the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone's movie JFK generated enough public discussion that it actually compelled Congress to pass the JFK Act, which forced the government to release tons of files which had not been previously accessible to the public. Ironically, many of those files had evidence which disproved some of the allegations raised in Stone's movie. This in turn caused Stone to retract some of the things he suggested in the film. I support this, the free exchange of ideas in an open society. There should be no secrets or classified information withheld from the public. Everything should be open, accessible, and transparent.

It's not about supporting wild conspiracy theories. It's about demanding openness and honesty from those who rule over us. I see nothing wrong or dangerous about that whatsoever.

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.

Well, you and others keep saying that it expends valuable time and effort, but that's simply not true. Read my lips (figuratively speaking): IT'S JUST A FLAG!!! Changing to a different one is not that much trouble, and besides, a flag without gold fringe is cheaper, so it would save the taxpayers money by switching to flags without gold fringe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think they're saying that. Their actual claim is that the gold fringe symbolizes a different kind of law than what a civilian court is claiming.

Hold it. Let's stop right there. That puts a huge burden of proof upon the person making that claim.

 

[Stevicus]

So now we can add being disingenuous to your tactics.

Wrong again.

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.

Wrong again. You are being unreasonable.

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.

Wrong again. You simply don't understand what burden of proof means.

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

Wrong again.

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.

It's against the rules to insult others or make false claims about them.

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".

Wrong again.

Just a side note, I'm having this discussion with one person at a time. Just because others share the same illusions about our government doesn't make them correct. The truth is not a democracy.

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

I'm learning from you as I go along. I wrote "wrong again" repeatedly in this post, just as you have throughout this thread. This is much easier than actually having to put thought and effort into responding. Thanks for the lesson. I've learned a lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong again.



Wrong again. You are being unreasonable.



Wrong again. You simply don't understand what burden of proof means.



Wrong again.



It's against the rules to insult others or make false claims about them.



Wrong again.

Just a side note, I'm having this discussion with one person at a time. Just because others share the same illusions about our government doesn't make them correct. The truth is not a democracy.



I'm learning from you as I go along. I wrote "wrong again" repeatedly in this post, just as you have throughout this thread. This is much easier than actually having to put thought and effort into responding. Thanks for the lesson. I've learned a lot.

If you can't be honest no one will try to help you.

 

[Stevicus]

Hold it. Let's stop right there. That puts a huge burden of proof upon the person making that claim.

Then why don't you ask them to do that, and lay off of me? I'm just asking for clarity here.

 

[Stevicus]

If you can't be honest no one will try to help you.

I am being honest. Are you?

Tell me, what dog do you have in this fight anyway? Tell me about yourself. What do you believe in? Why are you spending so much time and energy on this topic? Most people would have given up by now.

 

[oldbadger]

Booze can be an enabling thing.

...........not for me.
I go all maudlin' and try to snog the Missus etc, so I get slapped.

 

[Revoltingest]

...........not for me.
I go all maudlin' and try to snog the Missus etc, so I get slapped.

Don't blame'r.
I'd do the same if you tried to play kissie face wit me.

 

[Stevicus]

But they don't. They are mere laughing stocks. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, a judge is doing that by refusing to comply with a simple request to change a flag in a courtroom. It would be so easy to do, and yet...

Right now you are rather entertaining in your rather lame attempts to defend these people, nothing more.

You didn't seem all that "entertained" when you acted all butthurt and demanded an apology from me.

They do clog the courts a bit.. They are not bruising any egos. But they are costing you and me money.

In the long run, they would actually be saving money by reducing the number of administrative "offenses" the courts choose to handle, when the courts could just as easily live and let live. If society truly lived by the axiom that "your rights end where the other person's rights begin" and stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes (such as driving without a license), then things would be much better and more free.

If someone does not cause measurable, provable harm to others, there should be no grounds for a court to prosecute them or the police to arrest them. Not in a society which purports itself to be "free."

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.

Not everyone agrees with that. Since you're so concerned with how others think, I should point out that many others, both inside and outside of America, have very serious and genuine criticisms with how the system works.

 

[Stevicus]

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

Well, that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? Who is to say who is a "loon" and who is not? Perhaps a psychiatrist might be able to say, but if that's the case, then "sovereign citizens" should either be rounded up and put into mental institutions, or they could be considered mentally disabled and given public assistance on that basis. If they're in a courtroom, they could be declared not guilty by reason of insanity. That would be much easier and more humane than declaring them in contempt of court.

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.

Okay, if I was in that courtroom and wanted to save time, I, too, would ask the judge to change the flag just so we can move on. It's the judge's choice to spend weeks quibbling over such a meaningless detail when he/she could just as easily change the flag in a matter of minutes. If the judge makes the choice to adamantly refuse to grant such a simple request, then that's on the judge, not on the defendant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why don't you ask them to do that, and lay off of me? I'm just asking for clarity here.

If you keep your posts short and sweet so will anyone else. Why didn't you respond to the post. In response to your question about honesty, this was not an honest response on your part. Do you not see that the person making this claim puts a huge burden of proof upon himself by making it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, a judge is doing that by refusing to comply with a simple request to change a flag in a courtroom. It would be so easy to do, and yet...

Oops, being dishonest again. You can't claim that this is a "simple request" until you show that it has some validity. Since you dodged it how is this different from a demand of pink robes?

You didn't seem all that "entertained" when you acted all butthurt and demanded an apology from me.

Not "butthurt", a bit angry that you spread false claims about me. Please try to be honest. Do not make false claims about others.

In the long run, they would actually be saving money by reducing the number of administrative "offenses" the courts choose to handle, when the courts could just as easily live and let live. If society truly lived by the axiom that "your rights end where the other person's rights begin" and stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes (such as driving without a license), then things would be much better and more free.

If someone does not cause measurable, provable harm to others, there should be no grounds for a court to prosecute them or the police to arrest them. Not in a society which purports itself to be "free."



Not everyone agrees with that. Since you're so concerned with how others think, I should point out that many others, both inside and outside of America, have very serious and genuine criticisms with how the system works.

Nonsense, not even worth responding to. Go back to my prior post and answer that question first.

 

[oldbadger]

Don't blame'r.
I'd do the same if you tried to play kissie face wit me.

I like a bit of domination.
It helps........

 

[Stevicus]

If you keep your posts short and sweet so will anyone else. Why didn't you respond to the post.

Which post? There are so many. Please give me a post number to any post I haven't responded to. Besides, it's a bit difficult to respond to a point when all you say is "you're wrong." That doesn't leave much to respond to or answer.

In response to your question about honesty, this was not an honest response on your part.

It was a question. Why didn't you answer it?

Do you not see that the person making this claim puts a huge burden of proof upon himself by making it?

Yes, but that would also require for you (or anyone else) to give a fair hearing of the evidence. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, then where does that leave us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, if I was in that courtroom and wanted to save time, I, too, would ask the judge to change the flag just so we can move on.

It’s not up to you either. Again: the judge’s job is to hear and rule on the case. If you and the other party want to have long discussions about decor, hang out at IKEA (until they kick you out, too). It’s not the place of the parties to demand things unless they affect the outcome of the case or someone’s rights.

It's the judge's choice to spend weeks quibbling over such a meaningless detail when he/she could just as easily change the flag in a matter of minutes. If the judge makes the choice to adamantly refuse to grant such a simple request, then that's on the judge, not on the defendant.

No, it isn’t. It’s reasonable to expect that a judge will maintain control of his or her courtroom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which post? There are so many. Please give me a post number to any post I haven't responded to. Besides, it's a bit difficult to respond to a point when all you say is "you're wrong." That doesn't leave much to respond to or answer.



It was a question. Why didn't you answer it?



Yes, but that would also require for you (or anyone else) to give a fair hearing of the evidence. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, then where does that leave us?

Try again, there is no point in breaking up such a short post. It smacks of desperation.

 

[Stevicus]

Oops, being dishonest again. You can't claim that this is a "simple request" until you show that it has some validity. Since you dodged it how is this different from a demand of pink robes?

Well, first, I never actually asked or demanded anyone to wear pink robes. Talk about being dishonest.

Second, it is a simple request, and I can show just how simple it is:

There is a flag store which is a mere 10 minute drive from the county courthouse. A short recess is all it takes to simply drive down to the flag store, buy a flag (which the defendant can even pay for, if that's your only quibble), and then return. Simple, huh? Please explain to me why this is overly complicated to you.

The pink bathrobe example was just a quip, but it's different than a flag, since most men might feel silly dressing up in a pink bathrobe. But on that subject, what if a judge wanted to wear just a suit and tie and not put on a robe. Does he have the right to do so?

Not "butthurt", a bit angry that you spread false claims about me. Please try to be honest. Do not make false claims about others.

I don't believe I made any false claims about others. You made two contradictory statements, both of which could not have been true, and I was merely making an observation.

Nonsense, not even worth responding to. Go back to my prior post and answer that question first.

You made the argument that they clog the courts and that they cost the taxpayers money. I was merely responding to the argument that YOU made. Why do you ask me to answer questions and arguments, but then refuse to listen to those arguments? What are you trying to do here? Have a discussion or just play games.

You also made the claim that the system works rather well, which I (and many others) disagree with. Why is my disagreement so bothersome to you? Why can't you answer the points I made and play this game of "La-la-la, I can't hear you"?

 

[Nous]

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 think they're saying that.

Here's exactly what that web page confusingly says: “A yellow fringe is not authorized on a Title 4: U.S.A.: Codes: Chapter: 1: Section: 1&2 flag. It is a mutilation (Sec.: 3).” (Yes, two sentences with a total of seven colons.)

The problem is that § 3 literally does not seem include merely attaching fringe to a flag. But even if the language does include attaching fringe to a flag, the statute is only applicable to D.C., and it is about the least serious misdemeanor of any act prohibited by federal law--a $100 fine and/or 30 days in prison if one tries to sell it or display it to the public somehow, “in the discretion of the court”.

And, given the holdings of Spence v. Washington and Texas v. Johnson, the latter in which the worst kind of desecration of the flag, such as burning and stomping on the flag, was held to be expression protected by the First Amendment, apparently no conviction under the federal statute is constitutional. Yellow fringe also doesn't turn the US into Mozambique under martial law, or whatever the floridly fantastic idea is on that web page.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, first, I never actually asked or demanded anyone to wear pink robes. Talk about being dishonest.

Actually you did, to be more specific a pink bathrobe.

Try again.

And no more breaking up of posts.

 

[Stevicus]

It’s not up to you either. Again: the judge’s job is to hear and rule on the case. If you and the other party want to have long discussions about decor, hang out at IKEA (until they kick you out, too). It’s not the place of the parties to demand things unless they affect the outcome of the case or someone’s rights.

But it would save time, rather than constantly argue over minutia. It's so simple.

No, it isn’t. It’s reasonable to expect that a judge will maintain control of his or her courtroom.

To a reasonable degree, yes. But when a judge acts like an unreasonable tyrant or dictator, then (outside the courtroom), an individual has the right to call it that.