Can anyone actually explain what this person THINKS their rights are here? Like, are they just saying “you can’t give me a moving violation fine because I never signed up for that so it’s theft and slavery”? Or is there something more nuanced to their argument that I’m missing?
EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has contributed. My big takeaway from this is that sovcits pick and choose which legal language to believe like a modern American Catholic picks and chooses Bible verses to believe. 👍
You know how dogs don’t necessarily understand the words you’re saying to get them to do a trick, or why they’re doing the trick? It’s basically that, if dogs thought they could make you do tricks by barking correctly. How much lead exposure factors into it is up for debate.
When you are born, the government creates a fake corporate entity with your same name. That’s the thing that accrues the debts, fines, and jail sentences, not you the person. As long as you never sign a document in black or blue ink they cannot assign those to you because of arcane law stuff.
I think there might be multiple subgenres, but this person/corporation duality is definitely one of the subgenres. I think the common element is they all believe there is some sort of magic spell they can cast to be immune to regulations.
They think that because they do not “create joinder” by accepting the ticket that it doesn’t apply to them. They will “rescind” them by sending them back with some nonsense written on it at a 45 degree angle in red ink with a thumbprint and believe that cancels the ticket. Here is an example.
Ok, so obviously, this doesn’t work, but let’s pretend for a second that it does for my following question. Why would the red writing need to be at 45°?
Some of their reasoning isn’t known. The red ink, 45 degree angle, thumbprint stuff, nobody seems to know where it came from, not even the researchers who follow this stuff. Sovcits are only loosely associated with each other and there are subgroups of them (called American state nationals, secured party creditors, etc), so basically everything they do gets passed around via word of mouth, and each is more nonsensical than the last. It’s only the last handful of years that researchers have been taking a good look at them, but they’ve been around since the 1970s, so a lot of the origins are probably lost to history.
I would argue the drivers license is the proof of a contract stating you’ll follow the law pertaining to it. The ticket is a penalty for breaking that contract, not a new contract. But I know their lack of understanding logic.
I won’t claim I know what the “Truth in Lending” act is, or if it refers to red ink at a 45 degree angle. But even if it is real, I highly doubt it has anything to do with moving violations.
I frequently have to explain to people that the statue of limitations does not mean a ticket from 20 years ago is done with.
The truth in lending law or another similar law does indeed allow you to cancel a loan. Tickets aren’t loans obviously though. The goal is you could get a car loan or a mortgage, and then decide it was a bad idea and cancel the loan, and give back the property.
Abstractly, we as people in society abide a social contract. Not a physical document we signed but a general expectation we all hold of each other in how we interact as citizens.
He appears to reject this style of thinking and refuse the consequences of this social contract because it isn’t something they’ve actually consented into, like you would when signing a physical contract.
So to this person this traffic ticket is a debt placed on them by someone with no authority to do so.
Typically it’s people who get pulled into this thought process when seeking legal help and are unable to distinguish good advice from bad advice. They join these groups of like minded people and it becomes a blind leading the blind scenario. Or by someone trying to scam them with ‘lessons’.
I think it stems from the complex nature of law there’s some things that sound so fake that are real that it blurs the lines. For example the US Congress can authorize ordinary people to engage in maritime theft against other nations.
The Articles of Confederation had some language in it. Those were quite famously superceded by a little document we call the Constitution. Sovcits will sometimes reference language used in the Articles to claim random stuff that just doesn’t apply.
They’ll also find random laws that can use niche definitions and stuff. As a sort of example, there’s a section of federal law that pretty clearly excludes your personal car from the definition of “motor vehicle”. Though I didn’t dig much further, the definitions section began with, “For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions apply.” Emphasis mine. They then use this to say states are not allowed to supercede feeders federal law and therefore the state is wrong.
Whoa, sweeping negative generalization about hundreds of millions of people. You slammed a bunch of people off topic, you must have something to get off your chest.
Are you jumping in to help make illogical generalizations seem less nuts? Each judge was nominated by a presidential administration and then confirmed by the US Senate. Do Catholics run all of those branches of governmemt? Are the Catholics in the room with us now?
Literally yes xD Follow much American politics? Ever looked at distribution of religious following in Congress compared to the American public? Not to mention that even non-Catholic denominations can trace their crazy rhetoric back to one-time Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church is the root of evil when it comes to Christian theocracy in all its various shapes and forms.
Stop being willfully ignorant and accept that the Catholic Church, through its teachings over time, has caused irreparable damage to our political systems for literally over a thousand years and continues to do so today.
Or need I begin enumerating all of the heinous laws that are based in Catholic dogma from the past millennia? I’d be happy to start with just the ones that are still in effect today, if that’s easier for you
Can anyone actually explain what this person THINKS their rights are here? Like, are they just saying “you can’t give me a moving violation fine because I never signed up for that so it’s theft and slavery”? Or is there something more nuanced to their argument that I’m missing?
EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has contributed. My big takeaway from this is that sovcits pick and choose which legal language to believe like a modern American Catholic picks and chooses Bible verses to believe. 👍
You know how dogs don’t necessarily understand the words you’re saying to get them to do a trick, or why they’re doing the trick? It’s basically that, if dogs thought they could make you do tricks by barking correctly. How much lead exposure factors into it is up for debate.
a modern incarnation of cargo cult?
You know I’ve never connected it to SovCits but the cargo cult comparison matches well. With a dash of conspiracy theorizing.
When you are born, the government creates a fake corporate entity with your same name. That’s the thing that accrues the debts, fines, and jail sentences, not you the person. As long as you never sign a document in black or blue ink they cannot assign those to you because of arcane law stuff.
This is FOR REAL the core reasoning of sovcits???
I think there might be multiple subgenres, but this person/corporation duality is definitely one of the subgenres. I think the common element is they all believe there is some sort of magic spell they can cast to be immune to regulations.
This is an ironclad belief of theirs.
They think that because they do not “create joinder” by accepting the ticket that it doesn’t apply to them. They will “rescind” them by sending them back with some nonsense written on it at a 45 degree angle in red ink with a thumbprint and believe that cancels the ticket. Here is an example.
Ok, so obviously, this doesn’t work, but let’s pretend for a second that it does for my following question. Why would the red writing need to be at 45°?
Why are sovcits batshit crazy? Who knows. It is funny picturing a county clerk with a compass and ruler going “It’s 44.5°, we got them boys”
deleted by creator
Some of their reasoning isn’t known. The red ink, 45 degree angle, thumbprint stuff, nobody seems to know where it came from, not even the researchers who follow this stuff. Sovcits are only loosely associated with each other and there are subgroups of them (called American state nationals, secured party creditors, etc), so basically everything they do gets passed around via word of mouth, and each is more nonsensical than the last. It’s only the last handful of years that researchers have been taking a good look at them, but they’ve been around since the 1970s, so a lot of the origins are probably lost to history.
I would argue the drivers license is the proof of a contract stating you’ll follow the law pertaining to it. The ticket is a penalty for breaking that contract, not a new contract. But I know their lack of understanding logic.
I see. That’s… Just so patently false on the face of it. I suppose if people want to believe hard enough, they will.
Not sure how they fail to understand the difference between a notice and an agreement but good luck to them, I suppose.
Why are they so obsessed with red ink and 45° angles? It’s so arbitrary.
I won’t claim I know what the “Truth in Lending” act is, or if it refers to red ink at a 45 degree angle. But even if it is real, I highly doubt it has anything to do with moving violations.
I frequently have to explain to people that the statue of limitations does not mean a ticket from 20 years ago is done with.
The truth in lending law or another similar law does indeed allow you to cancel a loan. Tickets aren’t loans obviously though. The goal is you could get a car loan or a mortgage, and then decide it was a bad idea and cancel the loan, and give back the property.
Yep, I’m sure it is a real law but does not apply to moving violations or parking tickets.
Also yea, sounds like a very reasonable law. Any idea if the red ink at an angle is a part of it?
deleted by creator
Abstractly, we as people in society abide a social contract. Not a physical document we signed but a general expectation we all hold of each other in how we interact as citizens.
He appears to reject this style of thinking and refuse the consequences of this social contract because it isn’t something they’ve actually consented into, like you would when signing a physical contract.
So to this person this traffic ticket is a debt placed on them by someone with no authority to do so.
Typically it’s people who get pulled into this thought process when seeking legal help and are unable to distinguish good advice from bad advice. They join these groups of like minded people and it becomes a blind leading the blind scenario. Or by someone trying to scam them with ‘lessons’.
I think it stems from the complex nature of law there’s some things that sound so fake that are real that it blurs the lines. For example the US Congress can authorize ordinary people to engage in maritime theft against other nations.
The Articles of Confederation had some language in it. Those were quite famously superceded by a little document we call the Constitution. Sovcits will sometimes reference language used in the Articles to claim random stuff that just doesn’t apply.
They’ll also find random laws that can use niche definitions and stuff. As a sort of example, there’s a section of federal law that pretty clearly excludes your personal car from the definition of “motor vehicle”. Though I didn’t dig much further, the definitions section began with, “For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions apply.” Emphasis mine. They then use this to say states are not allowed to supercede
feedersfederal law and therefore the state is wrong.Whoa, sweeping negative generalization about hundreds of millions of people. You slammed a bunch of people off topic, you must have something to get off your chest.
I would like to get the catholic’s boot off my government’s throat.
Which government? Which Catholic?
Six out of Nine SCOTUS judges, just to start.
Are you jumping in to help make illogical generalizations seem less nuts? Each judge was nominated by a presidential administration and then confirmed by the US Senate. Do Catholics run all of those branches of governmemt? Are the Catholics in the room with us now?
Literally yes xD Follow much American politics? Ever looked at distribution of religious following in Congress compared to the American public? Not to mention that even non-Catholic denominations can trace their crazy rhetoric back to one-time Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church is the root of evil when it comes to Christian theocracy in all its various shapes and forms.
Stop being willfully ignorant and accept that the Catholic Church, through its teachings over time, has caused irreparable damage to our political systems for literally over a thousand years and continues to do so today.
Or need I begin enumerating all of the heinous laws that are based in Catholic dogma from the past millennia? I’d be happy to start with just the ones that are still in effect today, if that’s easier for you