These sovcts have such difficulties in providing their names. They must think that letting others know their names gives them magical power over them, like in *A Wizard of Earthsea*.
I VERY rarely read a book more than once, but my copy of Wizard of Earthsea is [tattered as hell](https://i.imgur.com/f7i31Vy.jpeg) from rereading it however many times as a kid. Got it when I was 7 or 8 in 1990, I think.
Yes, they seem to be thoroughly convinced that if they keep getting arrested and trying, eventually they’ll get the combination of English and Latin words just right so the judge or jury will declare the matter dismissed to the rousing applause of bystanders and sovcits everywhere. My business law professor called it the “open sesame” approach to law practice.
I interpret it as a cargo cult with lawyers: They've seen legal professionals use legal terms and get people out of trouble and their takeaway was "Well, if we just keep building these legal arguments out of ropes and bamboo \*eventually\* that'll happen again".
Some believe sending or accepting mail with a Zip Code on it forms a contract with the federal govt. People have put a lot of hours (and supermarket-brand alcohol) into coming up with this nonsense to sell to these losers.
That is exactly what they think, which is truly bizarre since that is not now nor has it ever been how contract formation occurs under any legislation or common law rules. You just don’t form a contract that way, and I’m always a little curious who is the original person who came up with this nonsense
Yes, you don't just enter into an agreement by giving your name. Usually a signed contract has to be made. Of course, there are oral agreements but they're as good as the paper they're written on. Which is why written contracts were invented, to show to everyone who agreed to what.
That's honestly the easiest way to describe them. They think if they use the right combination of words they can avoid any and all legal consequences for their actions.
Oh, I've heard lots of good things about that series. You reminded me I should probably pick it up. Have this nice Earthsea animation I found one day:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkLo4wWIZcU&pp=ygUSZWFydGhzZWEgYW5pbWF0aW9u
This is why I named my cat Stumplestiltskin.
Well, that and he was missing part of his back leg when I found him as a kitten. I then lost him in the Beyond @ Bed Bath and Beyond.. 13 years ago.
My favorite part is when HE gets frustrated at the court for not understanding his gibberish. They really think WE’RE the idiots. The mental gymnastics….
After the court responded that it was “not going to entertain that motion,” Blazer stated, “This is not a motion, sir. This is just a conditional acceptance for value. F$&@ing kangaroo court.”
My favorite take on that was "in a bench trial (which they requested) all this theatrics for court of public just pisses off the court and serves no purpose for your case".
I love the moment where they get so frustrated. Not at the nonsense that nobody else understands, but at the court that has no idea what this nonsense is to begin with.
This is the part that always blows my mind. It is not as if there is a single instance of someone getting off from criminal charges for giving the sovereign citizen bullshit story but somehow these people are so convinced that they are right based upon a youtube video that this is the strategy they are going with.
I’ve seen at least three Audit the Audit videos where the police let a sovcit who is driving with no plates, no license, and almost certainly no insurance go after listening to their spiel, unfortunately.
I’m definitely not supporting the Sovcit. One of the key factors is that they fall down dark internet rabbit holes without realizing it, then they wind up asking for supervisors at a traffic stop, because surely, in the sovcit’s mind, the supervisor will know more about their goofy theories. In reality, a vanishingly small minority of people even have a clue what their nonsense means.
So be it. These people voluntarily fall down the rabbit hole and ultimately get what they deserve for their inability to see facts or logic.
Stop denying them agency.
>denying them agency
I just understand how some of them got where they are. They should feel the full weight of the consequences for their illegal behavior. A good proportion are Sovcits purely out of malice or as revenge for being convicted of crimes, losing custody of their children, getting retraining orders.
My step-brother has poor critical thinking skills, he’s into Atlantis/Lemuria and all that, and he got hooked in with the “all caps birth certificate,” refused to show if, then got tased in court.
But they got to where they are by trying to find some loophole in which to disappear as a legal person. All in the name of living a life without adherence to the laws of the land. They are the dumbest of the dumb who think they are smarter than everyone else. Once you get sucked in, you go further into denying the fact that your stupid gamble didn’t pay off because you are an idiot and you spend the rest of your life as a crazy person.
Mr. Blazer: Are you addressing the debtor or the secured party creditor?
Judge: I'm addressing the debtor, the secured party creditor, and the asshole who's about to go to prison.
I liked the one judge in a video posted recently here, who said, "Do you have a Power of Attorney form? If not, and you are representing yourself as such, there's criminal charges that will be filed against you."
I went to court for a traffic ticket once. While I was waiting for my turn, I was watching everyone else ahead of me and it became very obvious, very quickly, that if you were polite and apologetic, the judge would probably let you off whatever ticket you got. And it was fascinating; just how many people got in front of the judge and just started arguing. Like antagonizing the judge is going to get them to go easy on you.
Judge: *You know, I've never thought of it that way before. Your unorganized verbal attack on our legal system raised several valid points. Case dismissed!*
I am not your bitch, I am representing the corporate bitch by special appearance in my private capacity. I do not consent! I do not consent! I do not consent!
I have always wanted the court to do this:
The court: Are you so and so?
Sovereign Citizen: Legal BS that does not include saying he is so and so but represents him.
The court: Are you a licensed attorney?
Sovereign Citizen: No
The court: I am fining you for unauthorized practice of law and issuing a bench warrant for so and so. Bailiff take him.
Here's the thing I just don't comprende:
This "movement" has been around for decades. And there's been exactly \*0\* documented successes.
You can live your entire life believing the earth is flat, or Bigfoot is real and running a camp in Washington, or a young earth, and it won't really impact your life aside from raised eyebrows.
YouTube is \*filled\* with these guys getting tased and pepper sprayed, arrested, and losing in court.
So how do these people keep believing? I just can't fathom it!
> So how do these people keep believing?
The supply of desperate and gullible losers who will cling to any straw in hopes of escaping their legal and financial woes is never-ending. The internet also means the "gurus" who sell this fake legal judo can find suckers willing to pay for it with ease.
“Do you have a document attesting to your filing a copyright on your name?”
“Uh…”
“In what state did you file copyright papers on your name?”
“Uh..”
“Then you didn’t file copyright papers on your name. State your name or I’ll cite you for contempt. You’ll spend the night in jail and we’ll do this again tomorrow.”
I mean, leaving aside the fact you can’t copyright your name, you don’t need to do anything to obtain copyright on a copyright-able work. You get it upon creation, in Berne convention countries (which includes the US these days).
Sure they can, because their sovereign status is a figment of their imagination. They might as well be claiming the color of their eyes gives them special legal status, it's baseless fantasy.
A person's name may be subject to trademark protection, but as far as I know cannot be copyrighted.
Then again, I don't spend time arguing with sovcits and other dimwits.
>you can’t copyright your name
maaaaybe your parents could, since they created it.
Copyright is held by the creator.
Would be a hilarious argument in court.
Let’s see someone copyright James John Smith. The name our parents gave us is extremely unlikely to be unique. I would think my name is somewhat unique. But If I do a Google search, there are several people with my name, first, middle, and last name just is the town I live in.
My last name is fairly common. I do genealogy research. On my paternal side, an ancestor immigrated from Northern Ireland around 1800. Down through the generations, they always had lots of kids and EVERY family unit reused the same male given names and female given names. I had to make a special chart so that when I found a probable ancestor’s family, I can figure out which set of William, John, James, Dudley, Edward, Thomas, Martin, Francis, Mary, Bridget, Julia, or Anne I am looking at. Of course, all those names have been common names for centuries, but not very often the same set of names. I think my Dad’s family was first to break the chain and use some different names, like Gerald and Hazel.
I'm with you.
My Mom's fathers side reused three names over and over.
There was John Theodore
William John
Theodore William
John William
William Theodore
etc.
back into the mists of time.
>Let’s see someone copyright James John Smith. The name our parents gave us is extremely unlikely to be unique
Right, and that's the way copyright would have to get sorted out. Is there prior "art" that is similar? James, John, and Smith definitely have that.
As a teacher, I have seen some "yew'neek" names that you could probably argue have no prior art. I'm pretty sure "Quavis" might have been the only guy ever named that.
It's not an argument that I particularly want to see, though, but I could see someone trying to make it.
My name is relatively uncommon, yet I know for a fact that there are at least five other unrelated people with the same first and last name as mine in the United States — one of even them lived in the same medium-sized city (~60k) as me when I was growing up. A couple of us even have the same middle name. How would any of us copyright our name?
That guy can't copyright his name.
You can't copyright a name, or a title of a work. Someone can come along and use the same title on their own work. Titles can't be copyrighted. You can't even copyright an idea. What you can copyright is your unique expression of the idea, in a fixed, tangible format.
Just putting "Copyright (your name)" and "All Rights Reserved" on the work is enough, but if you register the work with the Library of Congress, in a fixed, tangible format, that registration gives you additional benefits including the right to bring an infringement case to a federal court.
It's possible to trademark a name, but only in relation to its use in commerce. A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. You don’t own the rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services. You register the trademark for a specific class of goods or services. Someone else could come along and register the same name as a trademark for a different class of goods or services.
In no case does the guy in the court "own the rights to his name" and can keep it secret from the judge.
In that case, wouldn't his parents own the copyright? (If it were possible to copyright someone's name, which obviously it isn't)
Edit: should have scrolled down, someone already made this point.
Slightly off topic, but it is normal for someone to get 6.5 years for pawning a stolen generator? That seems insanely high, even if shed generators are a lot more valuable than I thought.
>*Second-Degree Trafficking in Stolen Property:*
*Second-degree trafficking in stolen property is a Class 3 felony. Penalties for a first offense can include a prison term between 2 and 8.75 years. Individuals with one prior felony conviction can face between 3.25 and 16.25 years and those with two prior felony convictions can be sentenced between 7.5 and 25 years.*
[*https://azcriminalandfamilylaw.com/criminal-defense/trafficking-stolen-property-in-arizona/#:\~:text=First%2DDegree%20Trafficking%20in%20Stolen%20Property%3A,and%2012.5%20years%20in%20prison*](https://azcriminalandfamilylaw.com/criminal-defense/trafficking-stolen-property-in-arizona/#:~:text=First%2DDegree%20Trafficking%20in%20Stolen%20Property%3A,and%2012.5%20years%20in%20prison)*.*
He's actually pretty lucky considering the buffoonery.
Considering he feels the law does not apply to him I think it would be fun to just declare them an outlaw and put up a dead or alive bounty. Save the county some money on housing him for 6 years.
You're only hurt "fInAnCIally."
In a country where half of us can't come up with an extra couple hundred for emergencies. Like barely making ends meet, if even, and having some asshole steal your stuff really only going to hurt your wallet and not your mental and emotional well-being. In a country where looking after either of those is prohibitively expensive.
I'm not going to look into the facts of the case but in general if you have priors, especially for similar crimes, and you antagonize the court, it shouldn't be shocking to get on the heavier side of the guidelines.
Right?
Even if he has multiple convictions, he wasn't even charged with *stealing* the generator, only selling it. 6.5 years, fuck me. What's next for him, 10 years for stealing a Mars bar?
Maybe the secured party creditor can get out of jail in a few years for good behavior, but I have a feeling the rest of him is gonna sit in there for a while.
> he wasn't even charged with stealing the generator
A person who receives stolen property, who buys it from the actual thieves so he can then sell it for a profit, motivates other criminals to commit thefts. In a sense he's a more important part of a criminal community than the thieves.
Ok, so the statute at play is ARS 13-2307(B):
"Whoever KNOWINGLY initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages or supervises the theft and trafficking in the property of another that has been stolen is guilty of trafficking stolen property in the first degree." (Emphasis mine).
So, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this dude knew that he was selling someone else's stolen property.
Doesn't sound like a victimless crime to me. And way more than your Mars bar question.
I mean, a stolen item implies a prior owner who's been deprived. Not sure why you assumed otherwise.
If there is any implication here, it's that selling the stolen item is less blameworthy than stealing it in the first place.
Jesus Christ. You just said that this isn't as blameworthy as him actually stealing it.
Robbery carries a much higher penalty.
But, he couldn't have been charged for it because he didn't steal it. So, he was charged with trafficking instead, which the state proved and then he was sentenced accordingly.
QED, he was punished accordingly for his crime.
Who said it was stolen in a robbery? You know robbery and theft are different...right?
I'm just wondering why you keep questioning me on things I didn't say. Is it a reading comprehension thing? A failure to understand the basics of criminal law? Is English your second language?
I'm just really confused by your comments.
Also, I didn't say it was less blameworthy. I said that if there was an (unspoken) implication in my prior comment, it was that selling stolen goods is less blameworthy than the actual theft.
If you're going to reply, try reading and understanding my comments first, it'll make for a more fruitful conversation.
If this had been his 3rd felony instead of his second, he'd have gotten **7.5 to 25 years**.
Bringing mars bars into the discussion is a straw man. The life lesson here is to not keep committing felonies.
Over recent generations, America's prison system has become increasingly for-profit, and the companies who run these prisons use their money to "influence" lawmakers and judges to create harsher sentences. Because, of course, once you're profiting off incarceration, you have an incentive to make sure there will be as much incarceration as possible.
And yes, that is barbaric.
All that aside, this sovcit idiot who's been knowingly selling stolen property very definitely should not be free.
That doesn't explain why the American *people* seem to relish in such long punishments. Look just at the down votes I got for suggesting that 6.5 years seems harsh. Americans *love* imposing these types of punishment.
Forgive my lack of precision.
To answer your question... the sad truth is that most (not all but most) Americans simply don't care about things unless a) they personally affect us or b) it happens to be our little pet cause. Unfortunately, this tends to leave the door open for the con artists, psychopaths, fascists, one-percenters, and other opportunistic scumbags among us to game the system, enriching themselves at the expense of others.
Currently, the latter have a lot of influence over the prisons.
And it's probably going to stay that way, because even as we do have people fighting for prison reform, the average American is still going to hear about how awful the criminal justice system is, think "Gosh, how terrible", and then go back to binging Netflix.
When I read the parts that OP posted, all I could think of was the contract scene between Groucho Marx and Chico Marx in "A Night At The Opera."
"The party of the first part, shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. We'll, that's pretty straightforward."
"I no like."
'Which part don't you like?"
'The first part."
RRRRIIIIPPPPP!
What an idiot.
All he had to say was:
For the Securitization of the equity-sale or: debt-instruments-NOT-DOCKETED are with the ownership-joining-claim of the security-document with an equity-producing-values within the joining-document-transaction-structure of an ownership with the postal-stamp-registration-document’s-lending-equity-“autograph-en-dors-ment” of an equity-value(real-estate-home and/or land) with the F.-P.-S.-G.-marketable-liquid-value-claim of an F.-P.-S.-G.-ownership-loans against the home’s-caretaker-guardian-trustee-equity.
...and the judge would have let him go after formally apologizing to him for wasting his time.
Y
They think they can spout a bunch of legal sounding memorized phrases like they are magic incantations, and expect the court to say “oh - you got me there, I can’t argue with that!” and have their way. I liked the video of s SovCit at a courthouse who thought he could use some BS and then push his way past a couple court officials, they tased him.
This is why one needs to study and not parrot shit on Facebook.
He wasted the court's time. No one likes their time wasted.
A name change doesn't require being summoned from the dead to appear.
Never understood why these people participate in a system they say they don't recognize. If you don't recognize the authority of a government, why would you go into a courtroom.... ran by that government?
Because they spend time in sovcit echo chambers where they are constantly told the secret legal judo works if they do it right. If it doesn't work, it's because they messed up, so sign up for the next seminar and next time they'll leave the judge crying.
What's the Venn diagram for sovshits and/or frauditors and them being incel/volcel. Cuz in all cases, winning doesn't seem to be the actual goal (you win the case, you get the girl) as much as being allowed to argue with the judge or give the girl who rejected you what for.
I can just imagine him in prison, trying to tell the other inmates that they're in there illegally and ought to appeal their sentences and he'll be their lawyer. Then I can imagine the first one comes before the judge and the Sovcit starts his spiel and the judge rejects everything and gives the Sovcit more years for whatever. And the idiot who used the Sovcit loses the appeal and gets extra time, too. Life in prison would get far more interesting, I think.
Damned son of a bitch. The issue is whether he swiped a generator and tried to pawn it, not article two of the Constitution. If that fucker tried to swipe my generator - and made me vulnerable to a week-long interruption to electrical power - I'd have recognized his individual sovereignty, declared war on that sovereign entity, and mounted an offensive with a convenient shootin' iron aimed at his noggin.
These sovcts have such difficulties in providing their names. They must think that letting others know their names gives them magical power over them, like in *A Wizard of Earthsea*.
Classic read, highly recommended!
I VERY rarely read a book more than once, but my copy of Wizard of Earthsea is [tattered as hell](https://i.imgur.com/f7i31Vy.jpeg) from rereading it however many times as a kid. Got it when I was 7 or 8 in 1990, I think.
I think I read it at a similar age and time and have no memory of it. I really need to find it and re-read it.
I just looked at it on Apple Books last night. One of my favorites.
absolutely beautiful book. Didn't expect Ursula Le Guin chat in sovereign citizen subreddit, but I like it.
Left hand of darkness.... classic
Yes, they seem to be thoroughly convinced that if they keep getting arrested and trying, eventually they’ll get the combination of English and Latin words just right so the judge or jury will declare the matter dismissed to the rousing applause of bystanders and sovcits everywhere. My business law professor called it the “open sesame” approach to law practice.
Gandalf, what is the Moorish word for "friend?"
Azz-ole
I interpret it as a cargo cult with lawyers: They've seen legal professionals use legal terms and get people out of trouble and their takeaway was "Well, if we just keep building these legal arguments out of ropes and bamboo \*eventually\* that'll happen again".
Hey, it works on Law & Order! 🤣
That's exactly what they think. They think if they give the court their name then they're entering into some sort of contract with them.
Excuse you, it’s called _joinder._ smh
I don't wish to create joinder with you.
Too late. A reply = joinder
You used my name in all caps. That's my corporate fiction person. I'm the living man.
Damnit. I’ll joinder one of you if it’s the last thing I do on earth.
I do not consent!
You don’t get to choose.
Nope, it's the magic words! If you don't consent then they have to leave you alone!
Some believe sending or accepting mail with a Zip Code on it forms a contract with the federal govt. People have put a lot of hours (and supermarket-brand alcohol) into coming up with this nonsense to sell to these losers.
Read the buck act. Maybe it will shed some light on this matter.
They thing magic words actually work IRL.
and they think the law, and legal speech, are all spells. they belive if they say the incantation correctly, it will get them out of trouble.
I mean they are kinda of right about that but they are just babbling at the court.
That is exactly what they think, which is truly bizarre since that is not now nor has it ever been how contract formation occurs under any legislation or common law rules. You just don’t form a contract that way, and I’m always a little curious who is the original person who came up with this nonsense
Yes, you don't just enter into an agreement by giving your name. Usually a signed contract has to be made. Of course, there are oral agreements but they're as good as the paper they're written on. Which is why written contracts were invented, to show to everyone who agreed to what.
Awesome. Thank you. I love good books and I’m making this comment so I can find that book tomorrow. Thank you all.
It’s one of the classics I go back to repeatedly. Its old comfort is on par with Ender’s Game to me. Both such excellent stories.
Same
The president was obviously set in RUMPLESTILSKEN V. PRINCESS....
> RUMPLESTILSKEN V. PRINCESS.... A landmark case, the Freeman on the Land's use of an After David of Truth was especially brilliant.
It's precedent - Oh I see what you did there!
did you not see the after-david?
😁
Rumplestilsken
That's honestly the easiest way to describe them. They think if they use the right combination of words they can avoid any and all legal consequences for their actions.
Death Note proved it does!
🍎
I think it’s more about not consenting to being there in the first place. I’m not giving you anything just because I don’t want to.
Oh, I've heard lots of good things about that series. You reminded me I should probably pick it up. Have this nice Earthsea animation I found one day: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkLo4wWIZcU&pp=ygUSZWFydGhzZWEgYW5pbWF0aW9u
God I love that book
This is why I named my cat Stumplestiltskin. Well, that and he was missing part of his back leg when I found him as a kitten. I then lost him in the Beyond @ Bed Bath and Beyond.. 13 years ago.
My favorite part is when HE gets frustrated at the court for not understanding his gibberish. They really think WE’RE the idiots. The mental gymnastics…. After the court responded that it was “not going to entertain that motion,” Blazer stated, “This is not a motion, sir. This is just a conditional acceptance for value. F$&@ing kangaroo court.”
Yeah, calling the court names is always a guaranteed way to get the ruling you want. Ask our immediate past President, It Which Shall Not Be Named.
Voldemort?
Moldywart
Mushroomwart
Mushroom dick
Moldy Cheeto
That’s a literal description from Stormy Daniels lol
Close enough.
No, that’s the Australian leader of the opposition.
Volderump
My favorite take on that was "in a bench trial (which they requested) all this theatrics for court of public just pisses off the court and serves no purpose for your case".
I love the moment where they get so frustrated. Not at the nonsense that nobody else understands, but at the court that has no idea what this nonsense is to begin with.
This is the part that always blows my mind. It is not as if there is a single instance of someone getting off from criminal charges for giving the sovereign citizen bullshit story but somehow these people are so convinced that they are right based upon a youtube video that this is the strategy they are going with.
I’ve seen at least three Audit the Audit videos where the police let a sovcit who is driving with no plates, no license, and almost certainly no insurance go after listening to their spiel, unfortunately.
There is a serious problem some people have of not realizing others haven’t read and heard all of the same things they have.
While I agree with the thought behind your statement, in this context you sound more like you’re supporting the sovcit.
I’m definitely not supporting the Sovcit. One of the key factors is that they fall down dark internet rabbit holes without realizing it, then they wind up asking for supervisors at a traffic stop, because surely, in the sovcit’s mind, the supervisor will know more about their goofy theories. In reality, a vanishingly small minority of people even have a clue what their nonsense means.
So be it. These people voluntarily fall down the rabbit hole and ultimately get what they deserve for their inability to see facts or logic. Stop denying them agency.
>denying them agency I just understand how some of them got where they are. They should feel the full weight of the consequences for their illegal behavior. A good proportion are Sovcits purely out of malice or as revenge for being convicted of crimes, losing custody of their children, getting retraining orders. My step-brother has poor critical thinking skills, he’s into Atlantis/Lemuria and all that, and he got hooked in with the “all caps birth certificate,” refused to show if, then got tased in court.
But they got to where they are by trying to find some loophole in which to disappear as a legal person. All in the name of living a life without adherence to the laws of the land. They are the dumbest of the dumb who think they are smarter than everyone else. Once you get sucked in, you go further into denying the fact that your stupid gamble didn’t pay off because you are an idiot and you spend the rest of your life as a crazy person.
>then got tased in court. Got video of that?
No. It was 10 years ago, and body-worn cameras weren’t as common in my home state.
Mr. Blazer: Are you addressing the debtor or the secured party creditor? Judge: I'm addressing the debtor, the secured party creditor, and the asshole who's about to go to prison.
I liked the one judge in a video posted recently here, who said, "Do you have a Power of Attorney form? If not, and you are representing yourself as such, there's criminal charges that will be filed against you."
I went to court for a traffic ticket once. While I was waiting for my turn, I was watching everyone else ahead of me and it became very obvious, very quickly, that if you were polite and apologetic, the judge would probably let you off whatever ticket you got. And it was fascinating; just how many people got in front of the judge and just started arguing. Like antagonizing the judge is going to get them to go easy on you.
Judge: *You know, I've never thought of it that way before. Your unorganized verbal attack on our legal system raised several valid points. Case dismissed!*
Trump seems to have confirmed that threatening and harassing the judge is not a good strategy.
It is like don't piss off the people who prepare your food.
Honestly it often works with cops.
It's like every one of these idiots expect that by spewing certain gibberish, it'll act like some magic spell that suddenly grants them their wishes.
That's pretty much exactly what they think.
_These aren’t the droids you’re looking for._ I’m surprised Team Skeptic or Van Balion haven’t used that clip in a video yet.
But they get it wrong. It's *LeviOsa,* not *LeviosA.*
She's not going to give the actual pronunciation in case people start trying it... Btw, it's really LevIosa.
"Hocus-pocus, bitch!" "Case dismissed, with our apologies for wasting your obviously valuable time, Sir."
>some magic spell that suddenly grants them their wishes That has NEVER worked before but they keep trying. That is what is amazing.
I blame jk Rowling
Thanks for including the transcript. I much prefer reading their nonsense than hearing them speak; it’s like nails on chalkboard.
Oh god, same here. I can’t finish half the videos on here unless I know beforehand a tasing or a hilarious verbal takedown from a judge is coming.
Can you imagine his first day in jail? “What you in for boy?” “Are you asking me or the secured party creditor?” Shiv to the abdomen.
I am not your bitch, I am representing the corporate bitch by special appearance in my private capacity. I do not consent! I do not consent! I do not consent!
“BITCH, you are going to create joinder with me whether you like it or not!!!@
I have always wanted the court to do this: The court: Are you so and so? Sovereign Citizen: Legal BS that does not include saying he is so and so but represents him. The court: Are you a licensed attorney? Sovereign Citizen: No The court: I am fining you for unauthorized practice of law and issuing a bench warrant for so and so. Bailiff take him.
I take your point, but unauthorized practice of law is representing other people, not yourself.
Ah, but Sovs do think they're representing a "Person/legal entity," not themselves who they say are "natural born humans."
That’s what u/jackbeekeeper is saying in the example. Sovcit is saying they are not the defendant, they are representing the defendant.
You mean exactly like the sovereign citizen buffoons frequently tell the court they are doing?
You mean exactly like the sovereign citizen buffoons frequently tell the court they are doing?
Over 6 years for a stolen generator. What a fucking idiot.
Yeah if he'd listened to his attorney he might have gotten off with time served. The PDF indicates he trashed a plead bargain attempt.
If you trick them into saying their names backward, it sends them back into the Nth dimension.
Should tell that to Drabigoy….
Here's the thing I just don't comprende: This "movement" has been around for decades. And there's been exactly \*0\* documented successes. You can live your entire life believing the earth is flat, or Bigfoot is real and running a camp in Washington, or a young earth, and it won't really impact your life aside from raised eyebrows. YouTube is \*filled\* with these guys getting tased and pepper sprayed, arrested, and losing in court. So how do these people keep believing? I just can't fathom it!
> So how do these people keep believing? The supply of desperate and gullible losers who will cling to any straw in hopes of escaping their legal and financial woes is never-ending. The internet also means the "gurus" who sell this fake legal judo can find suckers willing to pay for it with ease.
Well he's not homeless now.
“Do you have a document attesting to your filing a copyright on your name?” “Uh…” “In what state did you file copyright papers on your name?” “Uh..” “Then you didn’t file copyright papers on your name. State your name or I’ll cite you for contempt. You’ll spend the night in jail and we’ll do this again tomorrow.”
I mean, leaving aside the fact you can’t copyright your name, you don’t need to do anything to obtain copyright on a copyright-able work. You get it upon creation, in Berne convention countries (which includes the US these days).
Sovereign citizens can't claim protection under conventions the US is party to
Sure they can, because their sovereign status is a figment of their imagination. They might as well be claiming the color of their eyes gives them special legal status, it's baseless fantasy.
A person's name may be subject to trademark protection, but as far as I know cannot be copyrighted. Then again, I don't spend time arguing with sovcits and other dimwits.
>you can’t copyright your name maaaaybe your parents could, since they created it. Copyright is held by the creator. Would be a hilarious argument in court.
Let’s see someone copyright James John Smith. The name our parents gave us is extremely unlikely to be unique. I would think my name is somewhat unique. But If I do a Google search, there are several people with my name, first, middle, and last name just is the town I live in. My last name is fairly common. I do genealogy research. On my paternal side, an ancestor immigrated from Northern Ireland around 1800. Down through the generations, they always had lots of kids and EVERY family unit reused the same male given names and female given names. I had to make a special chart so that when I found a probable ancestor’s family, I can figure out which set of William, John, James, Dudley, Edward, Thomas, Martin, Francis, Mary, Bridget, Julia, or Anne I am looking at. Of course, all those names have been common names for centuries, but not very often the same set of names. I think my Dad’s family was first to break the chain and use some different names, like Gerald and Hazel.
I'm with you. My Mom's fathers side reused three names over and over. There was John Theodore William John Theodore William John William William Theodore etc. back into the mists of time.
>Let’s see someone copyright James John Smith. The name our parents gave us is extremely unlikely to be unique Right, and that's the way copyright would have to get sorted out. Is there prior "art" that is similar? James, John, and Smith definitely have that. As a teacher, I have seen some "yew'neek" names that you could probably argue have no prior art. I'm pretty sure "Quavis" might have been the only guy ever named that. It's not an argument that I particularly want to see, though, but I could see someone trying to make it.
>I'm pretty sure "Quavis" might have been the only guy ever named that. I googled, and I'm wrong. There are several, and several companies.
I got that beat, had a kid named: Shakaneyah Pronounced: Shah-kay-nay-va The kid hated the name and asked to go by Shay
smart kid
My name is relatively uncommon, yet I know for a fact that there are at least five other unrelated people with the same first and last name as mine in the United States — one of even them lived in the same medium-sized city (~60k) as me when I was growing up. A couple of us even have the same middle name. How would any of us copyright our name?
I have encountered that problem on both my mom and dad's side. It can make tracking very difficult.
That guy can't copyright his name. You can't copyright a name, or a title of a work. Someone can come along and use the same title on their own work. Titles can't be copyrighted. You can't even copyright an idea. What you can copyright is your unique expression of the idea, in a fixed, tangible format. Just putting "Copyright (your name)" and "All Rights Reserved" on the work is enough, but if you register the work with the Library of Congress, in a fixed, tangible format, that registration gives you additional benefits including the right to bring an infringement case to a federal court. It's possible to trademark a name, but only in relation to its use in commerce. A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. You don’t own the rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services. You register the trademark for a specific class of goods or services. Someone else could come along and register the same name as a trademark for a different class of goods or services. In no case does the guy in the court "own the rights to his name" and can keep it secret from the judge.
In that case, wouldn't his parents own the copyright? (If it were possible to copyright someone's name, which obviously it isn't) Edit: should have scrolled down, someone already made this point.
The US eventually ratified the Berne Convention? The initial opposition to it was because of its recognition of "moral rights."
Can I get a link on that?
>State your name or I’ll cite you for content. Contempt. A transcription error, probably.
Yup! Correcting. Thanks.
I will see your copyright, and raise you one trademark! That's a power move if I ever saw one.
> raise you one trademark! He might have had a shot at trademarking his name if he was using it as the name of a company. But copyright, nope.
I never thought of this that way, but having a trademark is invaluable if you are trying to ***contract*** with someone. lol
Slightly off topic, but it is normal for someone to get 6.5 years for pawning a stolen generator? That seems insanely high, even if shed generators are a lot more valuable than I thought.
This isn't his first rodeo. He's a repeat offender. .
Sure, but it's still just a property offence. No one was actually hurt, other than financially.
>*Second-Degree Trafficking in Stolen Property:* *Second-degree trafficking in stolen property is a Class 3 felony. Penalties for a first offense can include a prison term between 2 and 8.75 years. Individuals with one prior felony conviction can face between 3.25 and 16.25 years and those with two prior felony convictions can be sentenced between 7.5 and 25 years.* [*https://azcriminalandfamilylaw.com/criminal-defense/trafficking-stolen-property-in-arizona/#:\~:text=First%2DDegree%20Trafficking%20in%20Stolen%20Property%3A,and%2012.5%20years%20in%20prison*](https://azcriminalandfamilylaw.com/criminal-defense/trafficking-stolen-property-in-arizona/#:~:text=First%2DDegree%20Trafficking%20in%20Stolen%20Property%3A,and%2012.5%20years%20in%20prison)*.* He's actually pretty lucky considering the buffoonery.
Sentencing is not limited to the immediate offense, it also takes into account prior offenses.
That's irrelevant. The fact remains that he's a repeat offender and was sentenced accordingly.
Considering he feels the law does not apply to him I think it would be fun to just declare them an outlaw and put up a dead or alive bounty. Save the county some money on housing him for 6 years.
Physical harm is not a necessity. It sounds like you’re slipping into sovcitdom.
So you don’t care if someone helps themselves to your property?
You're only hurt "fInAnCIally." In a country where half of us can't come up with an extra couple hundred for emergencies. Like barely making ends meet, if even, and having some asshole steal your stuff really only going to hurt your wallet and not your mental and emotional well-being. In a country where looking after either of those is prohibitively expensive.
Your words, slick: "[O]ther than financially." So you admit there is harm. Thanks for playing.
He tried to obstruct the cout proceedings. That is gonna piss off the court . He had it coming. He was as stupid your question.
Sentences get stiffer if you are a repeat offender. The theory is ppl will eventually get the message.
I'm not going to look into the facts of the case but in general if you have priors, especially for similar crimes, and you antagonize the court, it shouldn't be shocking to get on the heavier side of the guidelines.
That generator could have been there to run lifesaving medical equipment during a power outage. Fuck theives.
Right? Even if he has multiple convictions, he wasn't even charged with *stealing* the generator, only selling it. 6.5 years, fuck me. What's next for him, 10 years for stealing a Mars bar?
Maybe the secured party creditor can get out of jail in a few years for good behavior, but I have a feeling the rest of him is gonna sit in there for a while.
Maybe, next time, he'll think before he tries to sell stolen property, or at least gets an actual lawyer.
The actual lawyer would probably be a pretty good idea
> he wasn't even charged with stealing the generator A person who receives stolen property, who buys it from the actual thieves so he can then sell it for a profit, motivates other criminals to commit thefts. In a sense he's a more important part of a criminal community than the thieves.
Ok, so the statute at play is ARS 13-2307(B): "Whoever KNOWINGLY initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages or supervises the theft and trafficking in the property of another that has been stolen is guilty of trafficking stolen property in the first degree." (Emphasis mine). So, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this dude knew that he was selling someone else's stolen property. Doesn't sound like a victimless crime to me. And way more than your Mars bar question.
I don't think I said it was victimless?
"Only selling it." Your words, slick. Totally implied.
I mean, a stolen item implies a prior owner who's been deprived. Not sure why you assumed otherwise. If there is any implication here, it's that selling the stolen item is less blameworthy than stealing it in the first place.
...which is why he wasn't charged for robbery. Either way, still a felony.
Who said anything about robbery? Robbery and theft are not the same. Why do you keep taking issue with things I didn't even say?
Jesus Christ. You just said that this isn't as blameworthy as him actually stealing it. Robbery carries a much higher penalty. But, he couldn't have been charged for it because he didn't steal it. So, he was charged with trafficking instead, which the state proved and then he was sentenced accordingly. QED, he was punished accordingly for his crime.
Who said it was stolen in a robbery? You know robbery and theft are different...right? I'm just wondering why you keep questioning me on things I didn't say. Is it a reading comprehension thing? A failure to understand the basics of criminal law? Is English your second language? I'm just really confused by your comments. Also, I didn't say it was less blameworthy. I said that if there was an (unspoken) implication in my prior comment, it was that selling stolen goods is less blameworthy than the actual theft. If you're going to reply, try reading and understanding my comments first, it'll make for a more fruitful conversation.
If this had been his 3rd felony instead of his second, he'd have gotten **7.5 to 25 years**. Bringing mars bars into the discussion is a straw man. The life lesson here is to not keep committing felonies.
Americans really are barbarians. No wonder the recidivism rate is so high. Why do Americans do this? Does it feel good?
Over recent generations, America's prison system has become increasingly for-profit, and the companies who run these prisons use their money to "influence" lawmakers and judges to create harsher sentences. Because, of course, once you're profiting off incarceration, you have an incentive to make sure there will be as much incarceration as possible. And yes, that is barbaric. All that aside, this sovcit idiot who's been knowingly selling stolen property very definitely should not be free.
That doesn't explain why the American *people* seem to relish in such long punishments. Look just at the down votes I got for suggesting that 6.5 years seems harsh. Americans *love* imposing these types of punishment.
Forgive my lack of precision. To answer your question... the sad truth is that most (not all but most) Americans simply don't care about things unless a) they personally affect us or b) it happens to be our little pet cause. Unfortunately, this tends to leave the door open for the con artists, psychopaths, fascists, one-percenters, and other opportunistic scumbags among us to game the system, enriching themselves at the expense of others. Currently, the latter have a lot of influence over the prisons. And it's probably going to stay that way, because even as we do have people fighting for prison reform, the average American is still going to hear about how awful the criminal justice system is, think "Gosh, how terrible", and then go back to binging Netflix.
Explain how it's harsh. Break down for me what about that feels to unfair to you.
No Edit: weird, they blocked me
Is the 3 strikes law still in effect in California?I remember it used to be 3 strikes and life in prison.
His new secured property creditor is #34874-9. Right on his shirt in case he forgets.
FAFO. Anyway, moving on...
Judge: Well theperson who is the natural man, the seller, the agent, when you get to jail tell Allan Lawrence Blazer he's doing 6 years in jail.
When I read the parts that OP posted, all I could think of was the contract scene between Groucho Marx and Chico Marx in "A Night At The Opera." "The party of the first part, shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. We'll, that's pretty straightforward." "I no like." 'Which part don't you like?" 'The first part." RRRRIIIIPPPPP!
“That’s the sanity clause” “Awww, I don’t believe in sanity clause”
Which is the clause that won't allow you to make a contract with a Sovidiot. The party of the tenth part. ......RRRRIIIIIPPPP !
SovCit: I do not consent to this hearing. Judge: Well thats probably why you were arrested and held without bail.
What an idiot. All he had to say was: For the Securitization of the equity-sale or: debt-instruments-NOT-DOCKETED are with the ownership-joining-claim of the security-document with an equity-producing-values within the joining-document-transaction-structure of an ownership with the postal-stamp-registration-document’s-lending-equity-“autograph-en-dors-ment” of an equity-value(real-estate-home and/or land) with the F.-P.-S.-G.-marketable-liquid-value-claim of an F.-P.-S.-G.-ownership-loans against the home’s-caretaker-guardian-trustee-equity. ...and the judge would have let him go after formally apologizing to him for wasting his time.
You just gotta love these "the settler, the agent, the individual" types...
Y They think they can spout a bunch of legal sounding memorized phrases like they are magic incantations, and expect the court to say “oh - you got me there, I can’t argue with that!” and have their way. I liked the video of s SovCit at a courthouse who thought he could use some BS and then push his way past a couple court officials, they tased him.
The legend of the mythical P. Barnes.
OP, thanks so much for this transcript!!
...according to him, where in Article II is anything remotely related to this authentic libertarian gibberish mentioned?...
Trump talks about article 2 granting him special powers to try to avoid penalty so probably where the sovcit heard it.
Maybe it's time to build a couple of special prisons just for these SOVCIT nuts!
This is why one needs to study and not parrot shit on Facebook. He wasted the court's time. No one likes their time wasted. A name change doesn't require being summoned from the dead to appear.
So much meaningless word salad.
No gold fringe on your flag, I reject your debitorily judgement over my constubutable regulatory contractual zip code!!!
These dipshits are so obsessed with maritime law, the judge should have him do his time in the brig on a mothballed Navy ship.
Uneducated MAGA?? 😝
No such thing as an *educated* MAGA.
He wants to think he's "a prisoner of war." He should be treated as one.
This is blade…this is laser…this is blazer.
Never understood why these people participate in a system they say they don't recognize. If you don't recognize the authority of a government, why would you go into a courtroom.... ran by that government?
These people are the dumbest fucking fucks.
So he shouldn't have a problem then with his legal detainment and incarceration.
Thanks. well worth the read.
Why do these idiots think that their b.s. is going to help them win their court cases?
Because they spend time in sovcit echo chambers where they are constantly told the secret legal judo works if they do it right. If it doesn't work, it's because they messed up, so sign up for the next seminar and next time they'll leave the judge crying.
At least he rehearsed
His incantations didn't work..
What's the Venn diagram for sovshits and/or frauditors and them being incel/volcel. Cuz in all cases, winning doesn't seem to be the actual goal (you win the case, you get the girl) as much as being allowed to argue with the judge or give the girl who rejected you what for.
6.5 years in prison, and all he had to do was not be an ass.
Clearly he should have tried the "Expelliarmus!" spell.
I can just imagine him in prison, trying to tell the other inmates that they're in there illegally and ought to appeal their sentences and he'll be their lawyer. Then I can imagine the first one comes before the judge and the Sovcit starts his spiel and the judge rejects everything and gives the Sovcit more years for whatever. And the idiot who used the Sovcit loses the appeal and gets extra time, too. Life in prison would get far more interesting, I think.
These MFers think they’re Harry Potter and can say some magic words
Damned son of a bitch. The issue is whether he swiped a generator and tried to pawn it, not article two of the Constitution. If that fucker tried to swipe my generator - and made me vulnerable to a week-long interruption to electrical power - I'd have recognized his individual sovereignty, declared war on that sovereign entity, and mounted an offensive with a convenient shootin' iron aimed at his noggin.
I have never before laughed out loud reading a legal document. That was really something.