• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Court Cam TV: The state of the Sovereign Nation

I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."
 
novaphile said:
I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."
Click to expand...

While I agree with the principle, since when was one required to call a police officer "sir"?
 
Skimmed much of the thread. SovCit as a defense has never worked and never will.

But I will agree it's fun to watch those loonies try to argue it on court cameras.
 
theprestige said:
What I'm seeing in this court footage is not so much a failure of legal reasoning, as a failure to follow court rules and procedures.
Click to expand...


No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.
 
Last edited:
novaphile said:
I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."
Click to expand...
I think they're getting better, slowly, at the "take no nonsense", at least the vids I see are moving that way.
The best I've seen recently was one (DL request, ~2nd attempt) who said...
"Here's how it's going to go. I'll ask you, then I'll tell you, then I'll make you."
And he did. [emoji38]

Side note... twice now, very recent stops, I've seen them lay a spike strip down between the wheels. Nice, very smart.
 
Mojo said:
No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).
Click to expand...

They are. But I read theprestige's point as saying both are wrong, but one may be improving. Procedural defects provide a court with an easy way to deflect problematic filings and activities. Usually conformance to procedure is evaluated before the merits of any filing. Once you finally get the procedure right, you may find your filing then fails on the merits. But a procedural error will mean the merits are never evaluated.

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.
Click to expand...

Haha, indeed. Both are arcane and stupid. But only one lets the move forward on the merits.
 
I think it's a way to signal an intent to handle the interaction in an orderly and respectful manner. The REALITY of it may differ, but that's the idea.
 
catsmate said:
Meads v Meads (link, beware it's 176 rather fascinating pages). Extensively cited (including here in Ireland) and written about in journals.
Click to expand...

When I was on the LPT helpline when in the Revenue, the FotLs were a live risk. One of my colleagues had the honour of spending an hour on the line with one of them each day for the best part of a week, poor woman. She then had to deal with Graham Dwyer a few weeks later.

For myself, the only contact was indirect, a Garda Sergeant rang asking for the specific provisions in law allowing for mandated payments, as an FotL had come to them making criminal allegations after having mandatory deductions at source slapped on their wages.
 
Mojo said:
No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.
Click to expand...

As Jay says, I'm noting the distinction between legal theory and courtroom procedures. I'm saying that I think SovCits are going to get better at navigating courtroom procedures. Things like how to file a motion. Even if the legal argument in the motion is nonsense, the motion itself will be properly filed before the court.

Or Jay's example of the voir dire nonsense. At least that defendant was perpetrating that nonsense in the proper point in the process - during cross examination. Not at their arraignment. Not at their bond hearing. Not during sentencing. They perpetrated their voir dire nonsense at the exact point in the process where they're entitled to perpetrate voir dire nonsense if they so choose. I consider that an evolutionary step towards courtoom fitness, even if their legal theories are still unfit.
 
Interesting thread. I have been watching sovcits, too. Seems that authorities, from police officers to judges are becoming increasingly apt at coping with them.

Hans
 
Court Cam is a great show for seeing what goes on after the Live PD arrests.

SovCits hasn't worked in the past, and I suspect it won't in the future.

Fun thing about it is that you kind of get the same judges and they can be pretty funny. And IMO pretty generous with rulings about bond releases. "I'll give you one more chance!"

And then there's the people who just want to argue with the judge and get a few more days for contempt.
 
I don't see how they win; in essence they want to be free of the jurisdiction of any court. No judge is going to allow that. And they also seem convinced that if they give in at any point, they will have entered into the dreaded contract.
 
Brainster said:
I don't see how they win; in essence they want to be free of the jurisdiction of any court. No judge is going to allow that. And they also seem convinced that if they give in at any point, they will have entered into the dreaded contract.
Click to expand...
It's magical thinking. Like expecting Jesus to save them
 
You have to keep in mind that while we've seen hundreds of failures, most of these people have only seen their own. Plus not having a clear idea of what is actually going on in court, and where exactly they went wrong.
 
theprestige said:
You have to keep in mind that while we've seen hundreds of failures, most of these people have only seen their own. Plus not having a clear idea of what is actually going on in court, and where exactly they went wrong.
Click to expand...

But presumably some of them know each other and have been sitting at the bar waiting for them to come in to celebrate their amazing court victory. And sitting.. And waiting.. And waiting..
 
P.J. Denyer said:
But presumably some of them know each other and have been sitting at the bar waiting for them to come in to celebrate their amazing court victory. And sitting.. And waiting.. And waiting..
Click to expand...
I don't think the presumption is warranted, from what I've seen.

This also seems to be part of a broader self-destructive/counter-productive mindset that I think a lot of petty criminals have. To put it bluntly, these are often people with limited impulse control, zero interest in foresight or long-term planning, and a head full of excuses for why they should or must continue making bad life choices. A person doesn't go full sovcit because they're looking for a rational, evidence-based way to fight the system and win. They do it because they're looking for ways to dig their heels in, and cause as much disruption as possible on the way to the Consequences of Their Actions.
 
i would imagine, for some of them, that if they’re getting more and more well versed in the law there’s a point where they realize the whole sovcit angle is a dead end.
 
dirtywick said:
i would imagine, for some of them, that if they’re getting more and more well versed in the law there’s a point where they realize the whole sovcit angle is a dead end.
Click to expand...
It's possible, though I suspect unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom