• BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I thought they were sovereign citizens. Why are these retards citing federal and state laws at all in the first place?

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      They think the law is magic, and that lawyers and the police are like the fae folk.

      All of their rules are written down, and if you can just find the right magic words you can free yourself from the system. Cops can only arrest you if you consent, which requires you to say the special words that tell them you don’t accept their authority: you’re a sovereign citizen, not a US corporate citizen, because the police only have authority over people who agree to be bound by the rules that bind US citizens.
      And the courts only have authority if you accept it, and you don’t have to if you recognize that that the flag they’re flying openly declares this court to be under a different jurisdiction, because only maritime flags have a fringe, and so the court isn’t actually a US court but a maritime court, so you can petition for a change of jurisdiction to a different court, but you have to be careful not to accept any of their authority or accidentally bind yourself to taking responsibility for the secret shell company that the US created for you that is your name spelled in ALL CAPS, otherwise you’re bound by their rules.

      It’s entirely bonkers, and based on layers of not understanding the law, magical thinking, conspiratorial thinking, and being taken in by a scam.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      They think that they are essentially citing ORIGINAL English Common Law that existed prior to the establishment of the US. A lot of what they argue would have made sense in the time before there was a US Constitution that changed/replaced a lot of that and then the centuries of the country progressing into the future and all the changes that entails.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Believe it or not, that’s what they usually do.

      They point to specific laws, which they wildly misinterpret, and say that these laws have loopholes which allow them to opt out of regulations, or even contain flaws large enough that the entire authority of government is invalid.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s like religious people who misinterpret holy text to mean what they want it to mean by ignoring any context.