|
By all means make fun of his appearance if you wish, but Fry's joining the group at the refuge was done as an act of rebellion against his ex-military father-probably as a part of the development of whatever mental illness he's got. Fry Sr. isn't associated with the sovcit movement in any way.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 03:36 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
Everything I've read about Fry's dad makes him seem like a reasonable guy in a bad situation. He was fully aware that his son was likely to commit suicide by cop and apparently really pissed off Fry with his common sense "Change things by voting and poo poo" attitude. As someone who has/had crazy relatives I feel for the guy and good on him for being a cool dude willing to get actively involved in his kid's life to try and help him get back on his feet. The reporter tried to play it down but the fact that the judge adjourned while Fry Jr. still rambling on about his mystery illness is pretty lol.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 04:06 |
|
https://twitter.com/NeoneHomme/status/717170762373681152
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 04:09 |
|
quote:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_defendant_says.html
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 04:18 |
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:I want to get a nice American flag necktie but with a gold fringe all the way around it. Just call me the SS Citizen
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 06:22 |
|
One weird trick to keep morons away! SovCits hate it!
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 06:54 |
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:One weird trick to keep morons away! SovCits hate it! Well that just added a whole new meaning to the term "motor boating".
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 07:08 |
|
When did people start quoting the first three words of the preamble to the constitution as a kind of harry potter magic spell to ward off government and summon a second revolutionary war? I feel like Palin reminded everyone of 5th grade civics for a minute, and then it was everywhere. But what do I know, maybe lee harvey oswald's was handing out We The People fliers. Maybe we the people is on every third page of the turner diaries. Feels like a 2008 fad that just gets more prominent the more the echo chamber leans over to huff its own farts, though. I was just remembering those final four occupiers on the radio asking why We The People never showed up with guns to help. Krinkle has issued a correction as of 08:30 on Apr 5, 2016 |
# ? Apr 5, 2016 08:26 |
|
"Why would we the people of the United States'' Medenbach asked, reading from prepared statements, "give the Judicial Department the power to tell We the People what the Constitution means?'' I'm going to quote this forever. loving gently caress, your Holy Constitution literally established the Judicial system to tell us what the constitution means. It really is, "the constitution should mean, I get to do anything and get all the stuff, and your interpreting it wrong if you don't agree."
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 08:40 |
|
that tie though
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 08:50 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:"Why would we the people of the United States'' Medenbach asked, reading from prepared statements, "give the Judicial Department the power to tell We the People what the Constitution means?'' Well no Marbury v Madison established that.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 09:09 |
|
It's like someone standing in the railroad tracks holding up a yield sign and becoming increasingly confused when the train doesn't turn to avoid them.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 11:45 |
|
Ape Has Killed Ape posted:It's like someone standing in the railroad tracks holding up a yield sign and becoming increasingly confused when the train doesn't turn to avoid them. http://www.npr.org/2015/04/12/399159965/20-years-later-sabotage-of-amtraks-sunset-limited-still-a-mystery
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 11:53 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:"Why would we the people of the United States'' Medenbach asked, reading from prepared statements, "give the Judicial Department the power to tell We the People what the Constitution means?'' Seriously, it's the perfect encapsulation of the SovCit mindset. "Why would we give the courts the ability to tell us what the law actually means instead of letting us interpret it in whatever way is convenient to us at the moment?"
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 12:17 |
|
When you think about it they're the Martin Luther's of the legal system, saying you don't need some fancy man in robes to interpret The Law, you can have a personal relationship with it or no relationship at all, because you are a boat
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 12:19 |
|
I've no idea if this has been addressed, but why would a guy named Robert go by the name lavoy? Does lavoy have some meaning in the states, like the duke or something? Ain't nothin wrong with going by Bobby if he were that way inclined and it sounds more Wild West than lavoy.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 12:41 |
|
Dr. Phildo posted:I've no idea if this has been addressed, but why would a guy named Robert go by the name lavoy? Does lavoy have some meaning in the states, like the duke or something? Ain't nothin wrong with going by Bobby if he were that way inclined and it sounds more Wild West than lavoy. LaVoy is his middle name. I'm going to guess that there was another Robert in his family when he was little and that's why he goes by his middle name. I go by mine because my parents did not like people's cutesy truncation of my first name (benny and benji in particular) and told all of my extended family to gently caress off and call me by my middle name instead.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 12:57 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:"Why would we the people of the United States'' Medenbach asked, reading from prepared statements, "give the Judicial Department the power to tell We the People what the Constitution means?'' I would have love if the judge stopped the trial right then and there, grabbed a copy of the Constitution and ask Medenbach to recite Article 3 in it's entirety. poo poo, she could tell him to use his own stupid pocket Constitution.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 13:09 |
|
fade5 posted:Dude, this was a positive outcome. Your son very nearly ended up in a pine box in the middle of loving Nowhere, Oregon like Tarp Man did. "At least he would have succeeded at something for once in his worthless life" Like you just know his dad is the kind of guy who considers his son's mental illness a moral failing.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 14:44 |
|
cumshitter posted:Everything I've read about Fry's dad makes him seem like a reasonable guy in a bad situation. He was fully aware that his son was likely to commit suicide by cop and apparently really pissed off Fry with his common sense "Change things by voting and poo poo" attitude. Oh well okay
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 14:45 |
|
Young Freud posted:I would have love if the judge stopped the trial right then and there, grabbed a copy of the Constitution and ask Medenbach to recite Article 3 in it's entirety. poo poo, she could tell him to use his own stupid pocket Constitution. Or simply have told him in the strongest tone that he really needs to reconsider his desire to defend himself because he is an incredibly stupid and ignorant man and neither stupidity nor ignorance on his part constitutes any obligation on the court's part. I know it's going to end up like: Medenbach - well the constitution doesn't let you tell we the prople (sic) what the constitution means therefore I demand all charges be dropped. Judge - actually it does, right here in Article 3. Request denied. Next item. Medenbach - Uh, actually that's all I had. I didn't think I needed anything more.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 14:55 |
|
I mean even if you got him to actually read the parts of the constitution that aren't the first and second amendment he'd argue with you and not understand the words but be absolutely sure he had the right idea because the founding fathers were god-kings that understood him personally. Like Article III says judges must have "good behavior" which clearly you do not have judge because you are ABANDONING YOUR DUTY TO WE THE PEOPLE.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:15 |
|
Also just reading Article III again myself I forgot it said that the courts have power over maritime and admiralty cases, so much for being a boat :iamafag:
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:17 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Also just reading Article III again myself I forgot it said that the courts have power over maritime and admiralty cases, so much for being a boat :iamafag: That's part of the jurisdictional argument of sovereigns. The federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal lands (of which only DC, territories, and military bases count) and in maritime cases. The way federal charges are brought against your average sovcit is because the federal courts are actually bringing an admiralty claim against them. This is all bologna, though.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:19 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's part of the jurisdictional argument of sovereigns. The federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal lands (of which only DC, territories, and military bases count) and in maritime cases. The way federal charges are brought against your average sovcit is because the federal courts are actually bringing an admiralty claim against them. Oh I thought they were saying they were a boat and the government acknowledged this because flag tassles but their boat is not in the US boat registry so they can't be tried or something, okay.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:25 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I mean even if you got him to actually read the parts of the constitution that aren't the first and second amendment he'd argue with you and not understand the words but be absolutely sure he had the right idea because the founding fathers were god-kings that understood him personally. The parallels to fringe religious groups are incredibly deep. The meaning of the documents is clear, all my arguments are valid regardless of complexity/implausibility/factual contradictions outside of the text and all of YOUR interpretations are because you hate (GOD | FREEDOM). The only thing separating them from a standard cult is that they don't DIRECTLY invoke the supernatural, just the metaphysical. But if you wanted to argue that the distinction there didn't matter I wouldn't call you wrong.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:27 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Oh I thought they were saying they were a boat and the government acknowledged this because flag tassles but their boat is not in the US boat registry so they can't be tried or something, okay. Not exactly. Some argue that the strawman is targetable under maritime law because it is a fictitious vessel. Some say it's because it's a maritime contract set up with the US bankruptcy. Regardless, federal maritime jurisdiction does not reach the flesh and blood man.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:38 |
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Or simply have told him in the strongest tone that he really needs to reconsider his desire to defend himself because he is an incredibly stupid and ignorant man and neither stupidity nor ignorance on his part constitutes any obligation on the court's part. I'd imagine his response would be more along the lines of incoherent ranting that his freedom is being trampled by a false authority than something this self aware.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:47 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Also just reading Article III again myself I forgot it said that the courts have power over maritime and admiralty cases, so much for being a boat :iamafag: Yeah, the Founding Fathers loving preempted that poo poo.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 15:49 |
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, the Founding Fathers loving preempted that poo poo. Does anyone have the paragraph that's the backbone of the weird boat thing? I know it involves the use of the word "vessel" and the fact that they have no idea how commas work.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:33 |
|
theflyingorc posted:Does anyone have the paragraph that's the backbone of the weird boat thing? I know it involves the use of the word "vessel" and the fact that they have no idea how commas work. The boat thing comes from the belief that the US government went bankrupt in 1933. Since then the US government was dissolved and is now just a swiss bank trust operating maritime contracts for all the foreign debtholders. There is no authorization in the US flag code for a flag with gold fringe and tassels on it. This means that any courtroom that has those is actually operating under admiralty law/military tribunal. There are some, but not all, that have the fringe belief that your straw man is a surrogate for a vessel in these courts and any case against you is actually a case in rem against your strawman. Your birth (berth) certificate is the signing of your strawman into the maritime contract. You are delivered through the berth canal to the doc (dock) and that's enough to fall under vessel definition. None of this makes sense because it's all nonsense, but this is what sovcits believe.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:43 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The boat thing comes from the belief that the US government went bankrupt in 1933. Since then the US government was dissolved and is now just a swiss bank trust operating maritime contracts for all the foreign debtholders. There is no authorization in the US flag code for a flag with gold fringe and tassels on it. This means that any courtroom that has those is actually operating under admiralty law/military tribunal. Nah, I'm familiar with the general ideas, but there's a very specific clause of a very specific document that is their "justification" for why they're boats, and it literally has to do with not understanding how commas function.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:45 |
|
theflyingorc posted:Nah, I'm familiar with the general ideas, but there's a very specific clause of a very specific document that is their "justification" for why they're boats, and it literally has to do with not understanding how commas function. Oh I'm not sure of that. I've only read it as an amalgamation of belief.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:47 |
|
I'd joinder my flesh and blood person with hers, if you know what I mean. Real SovCits only do it on water beds.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:48 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Oh I'm not sure of that. I've only read it as an amalgamation of belief. I've seen it from someone on this site before, but I'm having a really hard time finding it either in the constitution or the UCC. I'll keep digging.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:51 |
|
theflyingorc posted:I've seen it from someone on this site before, but I'm having a really hard time finding it either in the constitution or the UCC. I'll keep digging. I don't think it will be in the UCC.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 16:55 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't think it will be in the UCC. They quote it all the time, because "REASONS". My favorite is that UK courts keep having people make arguments based on the UCC, a document written in the US. It's really hard to decipher anything at all on sovereign websites, by the way: http://www.dwmlc.com/
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:00 |
|
I believe the ultimate origin of the focus on admiralty law is that way back in the colonial days, the British actually did what sovcits are saying the modern government is doing. Admiralty courts do not have juries, and by the time the colonies were getting a little antsy, the British started using admiralty jurisdiction to prosecute colonists because it allowed them to avoid jury nullification. If I am not mistaken that is the origin of the reference to deprivation of the right to juries in the list of grievances in the declaration of independence. Not sure what specific scrap of a statute they cite though.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:28 |
|
theflyingorc posted:They quote it all the time, because "REASONS". My favorite is that UK courts keep having people make arguments based on the UCC, a document written in the US. Well, the UCC is a huge portion of sovereign belief, but it doesn't really touch on the maritime/vessel aspects that I've seen.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:38 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You are delivered through the berth canal to the doc (dock) ahhaha I had never heard that specific one before that's great
|
# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:49 |