IGX

Are you talking about all that "Freemen on the Land" bullshit? It's about as legit as the loons who say they don't have to pay Federal Income Taxes and charge money to give seminars to fools who will listen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

It's just a bunch of shitbirds. There is no coherent argument.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:It's just a bunch of shitbirds. There is no coherent argument.

He wasn't asking about Crossfit...

If there's gold fringe on the flag hanging in the courtroom then you're off scott-free because it indicates that the court's jurisdiction is limited only to maritime law.

Back when I sold electronics I always knew when a tax-avoidance seminar had just been presented in town because we'd get a rush of grumpy middle-aged losers with neckbeards and chips on their shoulders looking to buy micro-cassette tape recorders and tie-clip microphones, in order to record their interactions with Revenue Canada.

seeahill wrote:The 14th Amendment seems to be the starting point. The Uniform Commercial Code comes into it somehow and can lead a Sovereign to say to a cop giving her a ticket, "I don't have a contract with you."

I did my google-fu but it was weak and I couldn't find a comprehensible explanation of this reasoning.

It's a scam. There's literally a manual on how to prosecute people who perpetrate the scam. It doesn't end well for the scammers.

Lulz. Yeah, the "freeman on the land" stuff is pretty silly, and generally indicates someone of below average intelligence. I read about some kind of incessant filings with the court for some weird purpose.

OK, I got some of it. They believe you can legally declare yourself exempt from the first clause of the 14 Amendment. Therefore you are not a citizen of the Federal government and exempt from income tax. They believe (this is sorta foggy for me) that when you are born, the government gets $600,000 for you but if you declare yourself not bound by the 14th Amendment, they actually owe you that money. That is why they will take Federal subsidies and drive on the roads we pay our taxes to build and maintain. And yes, there's some goofy shit that has to do with Admiralty Law. Which I can't figure out.

A lot of this is couched in legal sounding terms.

And, yes, it is closely allied to the Freeman on the Land theories.

I thought this was about Ted Cruz being a Canadian.

The term of art term we lawyers have for the sovereign citizen movement and their legal claims is nincompoopery.

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:The term of art term we lawyers have for the sovereign citizen movement and their legal claims is nincompoopery.

But I hear they could file a lein on my house. I might not know. If I sell the house, I find there is a frivolous lein. No problem to contest. But it's several months out of my time.

AM I right?

In many (all?) US jurisdictions, you can't place a lien on someone's property without a court order. It's not impossible to get a bullshit court order, but putting a lien on your house isn't as simple as just filing papers with the county clerk, or something.

That said, there are innumerable ways that someone could fuck with you legally, if they were so inclined.

These are the sorts that like to copyright their name and "sue" the Courts for infringing on it every time their name appears in a filing.

seeahill wrote:

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:The term of art term we lawyers have for the sovereign citizen movement and their legal claims is nincompoopery.

But I hear they could file a lein on my house. I might not know. If I sell the house, I find there is a frivolous lein. No problem to contest. But it's several months out of my time.

AM I right?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDxEvdICKnw[/youtube]

If anyone is interested, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a bunch of stuff on Sovereigns.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

nobody's interested

TerryB wrote:nobody's interested

I wasn't either until I had a chat with the new neighbors.

the only time it is acceptable to state "I'm a free born man of the USA" is when you are singing Body of an American, by the pogues.

seeahill wrote:

TerryB wrote:nobody's interested

I wasn't either until I had a chat with the new neighbors.

The next time your cabin almost burns down it will be because their meth lab exploded.

You're like one of those vague facebook posters. WTH are you talking about with all your alluding to stuff that may or may not have happened?

I talked with a litigation attorney one time about some former employers who were trying to threaten me into complying with my "non-compete" clause my never working again in a 100 mile radius. He said do whatever the hell you want, it takes 25 grand to start legal shit with someone. Unless of course your enemy is rich and crazy. And then you should watch your back.

syaigh wrote: He said do whatever the hell you want, it takes 25 grand to start legal shit with someone. Unless of course your enemy is rich and crazy. And then you should watch your back.

I would amend "rich and crazy" to just "crazy." Filing fees are not nearly that expensive, and if you're representing yourself, as crazy people tend to do, suing someone is a downright bargain, particularly if the point is not to win but to burden the other side. Crazy people tend not to be able to put together meritorious legal arguments, but they are remarkably good at filing a lot of papers. That ties up the court's time and it ties up your time.

If I'm representing a client, there are inherent checks on the amount of bullshit I'm willing to throw at the court and the other party because (1) I want to win; (2) I want to maintain my professional reputation; and (3) at the extremes, I don't want to lose my license.

Crazy people don't care about any of those things: the bullshit piles up fast.

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:

syaigh wrote: He said do whatever the hell you want, it takes 25 grand to start legal shit with someone. Unless of course your enemy is rich and crazy. And then you should watch your back.

I would amend "rich and crazy" to just "crazy." Filing fees are not nearly that expensive, and if you're representing yourself, as crazy people tend to do, suing someone is a downright bargain, particularly if the point is not to win but to burden the other side. Crazy people tend not to be able to put together meritorious legal arguments, but they are remarkably good at filing a lot of papers. That ties up the court's time and it ties up your time.

If I'm representing a client, there are inherent checks on the amount of bullshit I'm willing to throw at the court and the other party because (1) I want to win; (2) I want to maintain my professional reputation; and (3) at the extremes, I don't want to lose my license.

Crazy people don't care about any of those things: the bullshit piles up fast.

What percentage of attorneys lose their license each year, on average?

Bob Wildes wrote:

What percentage of attorneys lose their license each year, on average?

Percentage? Dunno. Depends on the jurisdiction. In many states, the licensing authority (depending on where you are, it could be the state bar, or the state Supreme Court, or something else) is understaffed and overwhelmed. So for example, in California, where I am, only the most egregious conduct gets formally sanctioned.

Some very rough numbers, based on what I could find through a quick google search: There are about 185,000 lawyers on active status in California. In 2014, 171 lawyers were disbarred and 263 were suspended. Not included in those numbers are lawyers who resigned in lieu of discipline; figure another hundred or so. If we assume that the total number of disbarred + suspended + resigned lawyers is around 600, that's .3% of the active lawyers receiving some sort of career-altering sanction. Not a lot.

In my experience a lawyer's professional reputation is a much more important guarantor of good conduct than formal discipline. Litigation is often a very local practice; you'll work with the same lawyers and appear in front of the same judges over and over. And it's very hard to shake a bad reputation.

seeahill wrote:If anyone is interested, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a bunch of stuff on Sovereigns.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

Wonder how much of it is based upon reality? The SPLC is staffed with people so Progressive that they piss pink.

Remember reading about these Sovereign Citizens, their "people's courts" and so on. They're a parody of decent people, acting like children who think that they're Stateless persons who can do whatever they wish. Wonder how many of them bother to renounce their citizenship seeing as they don't have to pay taxes and such?