It’s true though. If I wanted to check if doing something specific was illegal I’d have a hard time finding it online officially unless I skimmed through dozens and dozens of legal documents written out in lawyer speak.
To be fair, in this context, the question is “If I want to continue receiving the thing that I agreed to pay for, can I do so without paying for it?”
It’s not that the law is really that complicated or hard for these agreements. It’s that sovereign citizens can’t accept the answer: yes you have to pay for things.
The entire ethos for them that the law is a magic language and if you learn the right spells you can get things for free. It’s an endless stream of “without prejudice” “corporation” “coupon” “not for commercial use” incantations… All with the same alchemical purpose: turn lead into gold turn words into not paying for things.
For these people, in their circles, they intentionally make the law complicated, so it aligns with their mystism.
Well, sort of. If you’re a corporation or have enough capital, you can continue to receive things without paying for them. If you’re able to understand how to set things up properly and can fake the right investment, you can get things for free.
Please don’t take this as support for sovcit; I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong.
I think you’re a little bit confused about why large companies sometimes are able to continue to receive services from their vendors if there is a lapse in payment.
It isn’t because they have legal standing, or are entitled to them, it’s just that their vendors are weighing the balance of probability: is it more likely that they’ll collapse and never get paid due to creditor protection… Or will they sort their shit out and pay late (as opposed to never). If they cut the supply of whatever the service is, that will damage the business relationship and it’s likely they’ll lose their contracts all together.
And yeah, sometimes companies use this as a bullying tactic.
But… There isn’t really any ambiguity in the civil law here: if you agree to pay for goods and services, and stop, then you aren’t entitled to those goods and services anymore.
I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood entitlement here. Squatter’s rights, for example, are an immediate counter to your lack of ambiguity. The securities system is built around not paying for things to get things, as are most subsidies. There’s a way to do all of that correctly, which most sovcits don’t understand.
No, I would be telling the sovcits that just because their services aren’t immediately cut off after a failure to pay, does not mean that they don’t eventually have to pay, and that if they don’t pay, their creditors will at the very least suspend the services, and almost certainly seek to collect the debt. Because that’s how it actually works. Both for individuals or corporations.
There sure are a lot of buildings, a lot trades, a bunch of water, and, best example, a few sovereign nations on US soil that would disagree with you.
I get that you think the rule of law matters. It doesn’t when you can afford the right lawyers or the right politicians. Sovcits are still crazy. It’s okay.
It’s true though. If I wanted to check if doing something specific was illegal I’d have a hard time finding it online officially unless I skimmed through dozens and dozens of legal documents written out in lawyer speak.
To be fair, in this context, the question is “If I want to continue receiving the thing that I agreed to pay for, can I do so without paying for it?”
It’s not that the law is really that complicated or hard for these agreements. It’s that sovereign citizens can’t accept the answer: yes you have to pay for things.
The entire ethos for them that the law is a magic language and if you learn the right spells you can get things for free. It’s an endless stream of “without prejudice” “corporation” “coupon” “not for commercial use” incantations… All with the same alchemical purpose:
turn lead into goldturn words into not paying for things.For these people, in their circles, they intentionally make the law complicated, so it aligns with their mystism.
Well, sort of. If you’re a corporation or have enough capital, you can continue to receive things without paying for them. If you’re able to understand how to set things up properly and can fake the right investment, you can get things for free.
Please don’t take this as support for sovcit; I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong.
I think you’re a little bit confused about why large companies sometimes are able to continue to receive services from their vendors if there is a lapse in payment.
It isn’t because they have legal standing, or are entitled to them, it’s just that their vendors are weighing the balance of probability: is it more likely that they’ll collapse and never get paid due to creditor protection… Or will they sort their shit out and pay late (as opposed to never). If they cut the supply of whatever the service is, that will damage the business relationship and it’s likely they’ll lose their contracts all together.
And yeah, sometimes companies use this as a bullying tactic.
But… There isn’t really any ambiguity in the civil law here: if you agree to pay for goods and services, and stop, then you aren’t entitled to those goods and services anymore.
I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood entitlement here. Squatter’s rights, for example, are an immediate counter to your lack of ambiguity. The securities system is built around not paying for things to get things, as are most subsidies. There’s a way to do all of that correctly, which most sovcits don’t understand.
You should go onto a sovcit forum and explain that yes, they can get things for free and that they’re just all doing it wrong.
By your own telling, you can get things for free if you’re large enough or have enough capital. Sounds like you’re right there with me!
No, I would be telling the sovcits that just because their services aren’t immediately cut off after a failure to pay, does not mean that they don’t eventually have to pay, and that if they don’t pay, their creditors will at the very least suspend the services, and almost certainly seek to collect the debt. Because that’s how it actually works. Both for individuals or corporations.
There sure are a lot of buildings, a lot trades, a bunch of water, and, best example, a few sovereign nations on US soil that would disagree with you.
I get that you think the rule of law matters. It doesn’t when you can afford the right lawyers or the right politicians. Sovcits are still crazy. It’s okay.
This is complete bullshit. You can easily find out if something is illegal in your town / state / county with a 5 min Google search.