• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    591 month ago

    The use of “over stand” in place of “understand” suggests that they may be some kind of Rastafarian sovcit. Are those a phenomenon?

    • @BonesOfTheMoonOPM
      link
      251 month ago

      Yes! They also say “eye” in place of “I”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 month ago

        Do they inherit specifically Rastafarian linguistic taboos, like swapping positive and negative word fragments where appropriate (so “understand” becomes “overstand” and “oppression” becomes “downpression”)?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    481 month ago

    God bless the Unitided States! 😂

    Isn’t the US currency issued by the US government? So they demand money issued by a government that they refuse to accept? So many brain confusion. Or do I not understand their position?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      121 month ago

      It seems to be a favorite phrase of theirs. I assume it has some mystic power in their minds like pretty much everything that they spout. But I probably haven’t taken enough hallucinogens to be able to understand their logic.

  • GladiusB
    link
    321 month ago

    Here’s a contract without your signature! That’s how contracts work right?

      • Good comparison; there is a difference in that EULAs give you a consent button that you have to click; the idea is that, by clicking “I accept these terms,” you accept the terms.

        I believe EULAs have still not been tried in court, but there is a difference between “I sent you something and so now we have a contract” and “I presented the terms and you voluntarily clicked the ‘I accept’ button and so now we have a contract.” The law does recognize “gentleman’s handshake” contracts (they’ve just been hard to prove), and EULAs would fall under that category of contract.

        EULAs are untested, but what SovCit is trying is a gentleman’s handshake where the handshake is some arbitrary behavior that SovCit has defined as being the agreement terms. That’s where this would fall apart; in a verbal agreement, both parties agree not only to the contract, but to what constitutes agreement. One side can’t simply make a binding declaration and define what constitutes acceptance. It’s like saying, “You owe me $100,000. By breathing, you signify that you accept these terms.” In a court, you could reasonably argue that the fact that you agreed, spat in your, and shook on it is by convention a clear sign of acceptance and binding. It’d be impossible to successively argue that I sent you a contract stating that if you crossed the street it constituted acceptance. SovCit is trying the latter.

  • @apfelwoiSchoppen
    link
    30
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    So $500k for taking it,

    $10k per “item”?,

    $100k per day,

    $200k per day if it is not returned.

    Got it, I think.

      • @apfelwoiSchoppen
        link
        81 month ago

        Chalk it up to my ignorance in the field is performance contracts.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I’m not a lawyer (though I am enrolled in law school, lol) but the entire thing is obviously fraudulent and wouldn’t hold up in court.

          The thing he/they/crown emperor of Mars or whatever cites is Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution:

          No state can ally with another country; make war; make their own money; allow private boats and vessels to catch and arrest enemy ships; or issue their own bills for credit. States must make only silver and gold to pay for things.

          Like that’s cool and all but he isn’t a country, and one person does not a country make –

          But then he cited the 14th amendment:

          No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          “Ahm, so uh – you’re claiming protection of a United States Citizen, then and recognizing the laws of the United States?” __

          This guy will get the book thrown at him and they’ll be laughing the whole time

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            81 month ago

            Presumably they don’t even need to go that far it isn’t a contract. No other party has agreed to it.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    251 month ago

    I’m sure the White House paid it extra special attention.

    So what exactly did they do this for?

    • @BonesOfTheMoonOPM
      link
      351 month ago

      I think this is the reason. He doesn’t make a lot of sense.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        281 month ago

        “I don’t have a home, but I’m not homeless!”

        Seems like a typical SovCit.

        • LanternEverywhere
          link
          fedilink
          331 month ago

          Sorry but he’s right on this one. A home isn’t just like a house. A mobile home is still a home. If the structure keeps you safe from the elements, contains some of your possessions, and is the place where you sleep usually, then that’s absolutely a home

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            151 month ago

            Yet conservatives salivate at the thought of literally destroying similar domiciles that happen to form an “encampment”. What’s the difference? Why does this guy deserve the dignity of being allowed to own things, while people living in encampments get their shit tossed in and are forced to move location constantly?

            • @Woozythebear
              link
              01 month ago

              And democrats don’t do this? You think tent cities aren’t getting bulldozed with all of people’s passions still inside in California? Because they absolutely are.

              • prole
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 month ago

                Did I mention Democrats? Read a fucking book.

          • @taiyang
            link
            31 month ago

            Isn’t that a reason to use the more current term “unhoused?”

          • Flying Squid
            link
            11 month ago

            RVs aren’t meant to be year-round dwellings. Especially not the kind you call a camper attached to a truck.

            • @Woozythebear
              link
              51 month ago

              Yeah well you aren’t meant to be working 60 hours a week to not be able to afford a 1bdr apartment but here we are.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                -11 month ago

                I agree, but that doesn’t mean this guy isn’t homeless.

            • LanternEverywhere
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Sure, but imo it still qualifies as enough to mean you’re not homeless. There are other terms that might apply though, like shelter insecure or something. If you have a safe place where you can sleep in, and come and go as you please, and that you legally have the rights to possess, then you aren’t homeless

        • @Darkard
          link
          English
          201 month ago

          I have a home so you can’t arrest me!

          I dont have an address so you can’t send me child support letters!

  • @Jimmyeatsausage
    link
    221 month ago

    I hope the tow driver pays pays him with a quarter taped to a note. That’s how it works, right?

    • @KISSmyOSFeddit
      link
      241 month ago

      "I hereby declare by my power as a sovereign entity that this quarter is worth a gajillion US dollars.

      You may keep the change."

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 month ago

      surely the tow driver would just send a 1099A with name all in capitals and the debt would be cleared?

    • TigrisMorte
      link
      fedilink
      181 month ago

      They get fed this BS in social media. Since they want to believe it, it must be true. Sadly there is about a third of the Country that is really brain damaged by the lead.

  • @aodhsishaj
    link
    14
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t see where they identify the vehicle. So any vehicle that is towed falls under this “contract”? So weird

  • @Sprawlie
    link
    121 month ago

    I gotta know. Where the fuck did this SovCit bullshit start/come from? I’m in my 40’s now, and i can say until the last 2-3 years, I hadn’t heard of these mouthbreathers

    • @BonesOfTheMoonOPM
      link
      171 month ago

      It actually dates back to the 1970s, it has roots in white supremacy! The Christian Identity movement pastor William Potter Gale was the creator of the Posse Comitatus, which was a far right anti-government movement who of course believed taxes were a creation of the Jews to exert world dominance. It expanded in the 1980s with the farm crisis and began popping up in various anti-government groups, an Oklahoma City bombing perpetrator claimed to be a sovcit. Throughout the 1990s it began to attract black people from the Moorish Science Temple (which is also trippy to read about), and many of its adherents today are black. Thanks to the internet it has spread into many other countries, and thanks to movements like Qanon it has grown more.

  • @captainlezbian
    link
    111 month ago

    The fuck is the 14th amendment doing in this‽

    For non Americans it’s the no slavery except as punishment for crimes amendment

  • Sagrotan
    link
    101 month ago

    “sovcit” sounds like a term from judge Dredd comics, city in east block or something

  • @blahsay
    link
    61 month ago

    Pencil? He upgraded from crayons because he’s a big boy now