"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Stevicus]

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

More deflection. At least answer the questions I put to you. Which post were you referring to (that you claim I didn't respond to)? Why do you ask about "burden of proof" and then close up when evidence is offered to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

More deflection. At least answer the questions I put to you. Which post were you referring to (that you claim I didn't respond to)? Why do you ask about "burden of proof" and then close up when evidence is offered to you?

Not deflection. I told you to keep it short and sweet and to focus. There have been countless ones where you did not respond. One of them was you need to demonstrate a difference between the pink bathrobe claim of yours and switching flags. In case you forgot this is what you posted:

"#68 - Stevicus
You make it sound like the judge is being asked to wear a pink bathrobe. EDIT: I don't see this as any different from someone who doesn't speak English requesting a translator or some other accommodation which the court would readily ..."

 

[Stevicus]

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

Try again.

And no more breaking up of posts.

The pink bathrobe remark was made by me in post #68, from which I will quote:

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

Note the phrase "you make it sound like..." Tell me how you managed to misconstrue the meaning of this as an actual demand or request that a judge wear a pink bathrobe.

What's the problem with breaking up of posts? This is a message board. There's no rule against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an example of a "Sovereign citizen" in a court abusing court rules. It is a wonder that the judge does not hit him with contempt of court charges:

Delay is his obvious goal. He can't win the case so he is trying to make it last forever. This wastes everyone's money.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The pink bathrobe remark was made by me in post #68, from which I will quote:



Note the phrase "you make it sound like..." Tell me how you managed to misconstrue the meaning of this as an actual demand or request that a judge wear a pink bathrobe.

What's the problem with breaking up of posts? This is a message board. There's no rule against it.

I understand what you said. So did others.

Try again.

 

[Stevicus]

Not deflection. I told you to keep it short and sweet and to focus. There have been countless ones where you did not respond. One of them was you need to demonstrate a difference between the pink bathrobe claim of yours and switching flags. In case you forgot this is what you posted:

"#68 - Stevicus
You make it sound like the judge is being asked to wear a pink bathrobe. EDIT: I don't see this as any different from someone who doesn't speak English requesting a translator or some other accommodation which the court would readily ..."

It looks like you quoted the same post before I could do so.

Admittedly, there have been many posts directed at me in this thread, and every time I try to respond, there are several more which show up. I tried to respond to every post, but with the constant rush of them coming in, I may have missed one or two. I'm only one man here. Try to ease up. You refused to respond to numerous arguments I've made. You've dismissed whole paragraphs of my responses while giving me curt one-liners without any elaboration or explanation whatsoever. I don't even think you're bothering to read anything I write, while picking and choosing quotes out of context. You claim that this is all a form of "entertainment" to you, but you seem more agitated than entertained ("no breaking up posts"). That's not my fault.

 

[Stevicus]

I understand what you said. So did others.

Try again.

I know what I said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what I said.

So do we.

 

[Nous]

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.

No one denies that there are injustices in our justice system. It's a quite outrageous way to try to express that fact by claiming that people only sometimes having rights depending on tyrants' moods.

My impression is that the "sovereign citizens" are not simply trying to express the idea that there exist injustices in our justice system.

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

Nothing I said implied that the language of the law has the "precision of mathematics".

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.

Perhaps you need to figure out how to respond without merely trying to knock down straw men. I haven't made any comment about judges' "human emotions". Right?

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?"

Notice how you are not responding to what I've actually said here.

On the thread you refer to, I quoted the SEP article on rights, and noted that consistent with the introductory passage, I would say that the language relating to "rights" is that they are expressions of objective moral facts. As such, that does not and cannot mean that rights go in and out of existence, or become valid or invalid, according to some "tyrant's" "mood". It means that, e.g., there is an objective moral fact about a government making another person involuntarily, by force of law, a slave. The mere fact that it was legal in the Confederate states for a person to own and enslave another person doesn't mean that the enslaved person's rights did not exist or disappeared.

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).

What you are referring to as "[your] argument" is not an argument but merely an assertion. You are welcomed to restate the rights secured by the Constitution in a more precise and clear manner. It is 250-year-old language, and, as noted, rights are stated in non-specific language in order to be applicable in many different (often unforeseeable) circumstances and in an ever-changing society.

In any case, my impression of the "sovereign citizens" is not that they merely have some disagreement about the language in which Constitutional rights are stated. My impression is that their issues are something more akin to psychopathology.

 

[Stevicus]

Here is an example of a "Sovereign citizen" in a court abusing court rules. It is a wonder that the judge does not hit him with contempt of court charges:

Delay is his obvious goal. He can't win the case so he is trying to make it last forever. This wastes everyone's money.

I don't think I care to watch a 48-minute video. Just out of curiosity, what was the guy being charged with? Jaywalking?

 

[Stevicus]

So do we.

Is that the royal "we"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Are you serious? Do you think that’s a reasonable explanation?

If a justice system doesn’t indulge the irrelevant whims of fools, I count this as a point in the system’s favour and not a problem at all... regardless of how much effort it would take to indulge the fool and regardless of the wild ideas the fool will invent to explain why he wasn’t indulged.

 

[Nous]

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.

On what grounds would the sovereign citizen make such an argument as that judges are "under strict orders to not" change a flag to different (non-fringed) one? Where do judges get these "strict orders"?

Have you ever noticed how the law is committed to memorializing judicial orders in writing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think I care to watch a 48-minute video. Just out of curiosity, what was the guy being charged with? Jaywalking?

I am not sure. He is a bit like any other delusional person, he keeps repeating the same bogus objection. Why the judge does not whack him with contempt of court is beyond me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that the royal "we"?

So you have not been even following the thread.

 

[Stevicus]

No one denies that there are injustices in our justice system. It's a quite outrageous way to try to express that fact by claiming that people only sometimes having rights depending on tyrants' moods.

I call it as I see it. If you want to be outraged about that, then it might be more fruitful if you're outraged at the actual injustices, not those who comment on it. I'm just an observer here. I'm not the one who locks people up for bogus crimes. I've never done any such thing, so my conscience is clear.

My impression is that the "sovereign citizens" are not simply trying to express the idea that there exist injustices in our justice system.

The ones I have spoken to would say that they're doing exactly that. I see it more as an act of civil disobedience, which has been applauded many times when people face injustice. It takes a great deal of courage to buck up against a system like that, even if it seems like "lunacy" to others.

Nothing I said implied that the language of the law has the "precision of mathematics".

You said (in post #155):

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".

The key word I note is "continual," which is defined as "frequently recurring; always happening."

Perhaps you need to figure out how to respond without merely trying to knock down straw men. I haven't made any comment about judges' "human emotions". Right?

In the same statement (quoted above), you stated that "(rights) do not...become valid or invalid according to some tyrant's mood." The word "mood" relates to human emotions.

Notice how you are not responding to what I've actually said here.

I wasn't going to respond to personal questions about me or anything that has happened to me. That seemed beside the point and irrelevant to what I was saying. However, I was merely elaborating further on the idea of rights changing from time to time. You did ask "What the hell are you talking about?" so I was responding to that question.

On the thread you refer to, I quoted the SEP article on rights, and noted that consistent with the introductory passage, I would say that the language relating to "rights" is that they are expressions of objective moral facts. As such, that does not and cannot mean that rights go in and out of existence, or become valid or invalid, according to some "tyrant's" "mood". It means that, e.g., there is an objective moral fact about a government making another person involuntarily, by force of law, a slave. The mere fact that it was legal in the Confederate states for a person to own and enslave another person doesn't mean that the enslaved person's rights did not exist or disappeared.

I actually agree with you on this. In this case, we're talking about something different than slavery. Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to travel without undue hardship or restrictions placed upon them? Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to be safe in his/her domicile without cops kicking in their doors or shooting them? Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to imbibe in whatever substances he/she wishes?

Some people in this thread have mentioned "civics class," but the commonly stated notion is that "your rights end where the other person's rights begin" and that we are all "equal before the law." Admittedly, that may be an oversimplification which is given to younger students, but when it comes to the actual practice when a person finds himself in a courtroom, it's something completely different. In a video which Subduction Zone posted, we see a judge clamoring about "procedure" and "court rules," as if rights can only be defined by a "licensed practicing attorney." The little guy who can't afford a good attorney is at a disadvantage. The judge appeared to be in a rather testy mood and wasn't willing to listen to the defendant. Is that fair? Is that representative of the kind of "justice" people can expect?

What you are referring to as "[your] argument" is not an argument but merely an assertion. You are welcomed to restate the rights secured by the Constitution in a more precise and clear manner. It is 250-year-old language, and, as noted, rights are stated in non-specific language in order to be applicable in many different (often unforeseeable) circumstances and in an ever-changing society.

But as history shows, it takes extraordinary effort to change that society. In the case of slavery, it took a Civil War which caused over a million deaths, not to mention the gross injustices that were allowed under the very same Constitution prior to that. If judges simply went along and agreed with the objective moral concepts of rights, then it would never have to come to that. Likewise, it took great courage and acts of defiance and civil disobedience during the Civil Rights movement to get action from the courts to finally rule in favor of human rights, whereas before, "separate but equal" was the law of the land, according to the very same vague Constitution. Just because a few judges finally got it right, that doesn't negate the many judges who continually got it wrong.

That's why I'm not willing to give a virtual blank check of power to judges, because history has shown that they're often wrong.

A precise and clear wording of the Constitution would be just as easy as saying "You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone and you don't steal."

In any case, my impression of the "sovereign citizens" is not that they merely have some disagreement about the language in which Constitutional rights are stated. My impression is that their issues are something more akin to psychopathology.

Well, as I said, I've known some of them personally, and they're not psychopaths at all. They're mainly of the ex-hippie variety who have found cause to question authority. They're free-thinkers and non-conformists who don't feel bound to any pedantic rules of procedure which bureaucratic martinets would place upon them. They're not anarchists or psychopaths. Maybe they might come across as a bit odd, and perhaps they might be upsetting to those who are locked into convention and form. To them, content is more important than form. But here in this thread, I have encountered those who are not free thinkers and who tend to be overly hung up on form, such as the guy saying "no breaking up posts." WTF is that all about?

 

[Stevicus]

Are you serious? Do you think that’s a reasonable explanation?

Perhaps, although it would explain why a judge would adamantly refuse to grant such a request, assuming that what the sovereign citizens are saying is true.

If a justice system doesn’t indulge the irrelevant whims of fools, I count this as a point in the system’s favour and not a problem at all... regardless of how much effort it would take to indulge the fool and regardless of the wild ideas the fool will invent to explain why he wasn’t indulged.

It's merely an exercise to prove or disprove whether judges are following the Constitution. "Fool" is also a verb, and if politicians (which judges are, lest we forget that) are trying to fool people into thinking that we have a fair and equitable system, then they might find that some people aren't so easily fooled.

Let me ask you this: Suppose you found yourself accused of a crime and you go into the courtroom and find that the judge is Donald Trump. Wouldn't you find reason to question the validity of such a court? Wouldn't you try to find ways of challenging and resisting the person who holds the power of life and death over you? Would you just knuckle under and submit?

 

[Stevicus]

So you have not been even following the thread.

I have been, more so than you have.

 

[Stevicus]

I am not sure. He is a bit like any other delusional person, he keeps repeating the same bogus objection. Why the judge does not whack him with contempt of court is beyond me.

If he's truly delusional, then why wouldn't the judge find him not guilty by reason of insanity? Why "whack" somebody with a contempt of court charge? Where is your conscience? Where is your sense of humanity?

 

[Stevicus]

On what grounds would the sovereign citizen make such an argument as that judges are "under strict orders to not" change a flag to different (non-fringed) one? Where do judges get these "strict orders"?

The assumption is that they're given in secret by higher authorities. I don't know if that's strictly true, but I don't know that it's not true either. No one in this thread has been able to prove otherwise.

Have you ever noticed how the law is committed to memorializing judicial orders in writing?

That may not be good enough. There should be cameras and microphones in every courtroom, up to and including the Supreme Court. Just as they have cameras in Congress. The people have a right to know.