Actual lawyer here. Just in case anyone was somehow unsure, this is utter nonsense.
In fact, calling it nonsense might be giving nonsense a bad name. Completely deranged might be better.
But yes. These people do exist. And they are a pain in the fucking ass. Every 100th filing they actually say something that does have legal precedent, and that you can’t ignore. So you have to actually read every line of their bullshit. Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign…
But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.
The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I’m not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can’t upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I’m probably doing something wrong, haven’t shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I’ll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I’d appreciate it, but I can’t spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.
But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity’s sake. It’s not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but…), it’s that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don’t respond, you lose.
The article said don’t engage them in face to face arguments because they’re insane and that’s a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.
Just for future reference, you can link to things using the following format:
[Your text here](Your link here)
If you want to embed the image to show up in-line with your comment, you add an exclamation point before the first bracket. And whatever you put in the brackets becomes alt text, which users can view by hovering over the image.
To put it into practice, the exclamation point is the difference between the following:
One note is that it’s typically best to start a new line when embedding, since some apps don’t quite know how to parse image width and will run off the edge of the screen (making some/all of the image unviewable.)
can’t something like this ‘legal maneuver’ be used as further evidence to take this numpty’s kids? a sovcit household is obviously not safe place for children.
My only experience with one wasn’t all that bad, but still kind of funny.
Client was charged with resisting/obstructing and disorderly conduct. Basically, the cops had closed a road because of an accident. Client was on his bike, and the officer told him the road was closed and he had to go a different way. Client flipped his shit, started yelling that the officer had no right to tell him where to go (yes they do), and no right to ask for identification (yes, they do).
Client finally started going an alternate route, and the officer was going to just let it go. But then he doubled back and tried to blow past the officer. Got arrested. Hired us.
I called the prosecutor to see what kind of reduction they’d be willing to do (standard procedure), and they were willing to drop one charge and reduce the other to an ordinance violation (pay a small fine).
Told the client this, who then flipped out on me for talking to the prosecutor without his consent (???) and without him there (which is, y’know, what he hired us to do). Fired our firm and demanded a refund. We all had a good laugh, and he did not get a refund.
Actual lawyer here. Just in case anyone was somehow unsure, this is utter nonsense.
In fact, calling it nonsense might be giving nonsense a bad name. Completely deranged might be better.
But yes. These people do exist. And they are a pain in the fucking ass. Every 100th filing they actually say something that does have legal precedent, and that you can’t ignore. So you have to actually read every line of their bullshit. Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign…
But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.
I’ve heard what SovCits do being referred to as paper terrorism.
Yep, this is a common expression, and I fully endorse it.
Do you have a public example of a sovereign saying something that has precedent?
The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I’m not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can’t upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I’m probably doing something wrong, haven’t shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I’ll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I’d appreciate it, but I can’t spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.
But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity’s sake. It’s not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but…), it’s that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don’t respond, you lose.
The article said don’t engage them in face to face arguments because they’re insane and that’s a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.
Okay well I just uploaded it to an imgur album. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/yoJch6n
Thanks for sharing, that was interesting
Just for future reference, you can link to things using the following format:
[Your text here](Your link here)
If you want to embed the image to show up in-line with your comment, you add an exclamation point before the first bracket. And whatever you put in the brackets becomes alt text, which users can view by hovering over the image.
To put it into practice, the exclamation point is the difference between the following:
Example link text
And
One note is that it’s typically best to start a new line when embedding, since some apps don’t quite know how to parse image width and will run off the edge of the screen (making some/all of the image unviewable.)
Has that ever actually happened?
can’t something like this ‘legal maneuver’ be used as further evidence to take this numpty’s kids? a sovcit household is obviously not safe place for children.
Ah but they do not identify as a household, it is a domicile containing non-incorporated individuals, so your rules don’t apply.
I’m just amazed that this movement hasn’t sworn off fiat currency while they’re at it. Assuming they’re not paying in precious metals, that is.
Do you have any good sovcit stories?
My only experience with one wasn’t all that bad, but still kind of funny.
Client was charged with resisting/obstructing and disorderly conduct. Basically, the cops had closed a road because of an accident. Client was on his bike, and the officer told him the road was closed and he had to go a different way. Client flipped his shit, started yelling that the officer had no right to tell him where to go (yes they do), and no right to ask for identification (yes, they do).
Client finally started going an alternate route, and the officer was going to just let it go. But then he doubled back and tried to blow past the officer. Got arrested. Hired us.
I called the prosecutor to see what kind of reduction they’d be willing to do (standard procedure), and they were willing to drop one charge and reduce the other to an ordinance violation (pay a small fine).
Told the client this, who then flipped out on me for talking to the prosecutor without his consent (???) and without him there (which is, y’know, what he hired us to do). Fired our firm and demanded a refund. We all had a good laugh, and he did not get a refund.
Like an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters…