Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›1198 »

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

You're going to have to demand a trial by congress.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 19:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 00:48

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

spacetoaster posted:

You're going to have to demand a trial by congress.

Trial by combat is technically still legal in common-law states. It was not abolished in England until 1819, and so American states that adopted the British common law -- as all 13 colonies did -- technically also adopted trial by combat, and there's been no decisive appellate ruling on it since.

Michigan was established in 1837, however, so if it adopted British common law at the time, that would exclude trial by combat, so OP may be out of luck on that front. OTOH if it adopted the common law of the other American states, then trial by combat may still be valid there unless it's been expressly repealed by statute.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 19:33

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

Front lawn light brite sovcit billboard was not what I expected to read this afternoon, but I am grateful for the experience.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 19:33

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

Shame OP chickened out. This could have been the sunken bath tub of the legal thread.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 19:51

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

Shoutout to VanSandman for his blessed quote of the OP for posterity forever.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:04

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Trial by combat is technically still legal in common-law states. It was not abolished in England until 1819, and so American states that adopted the British common law -- as all 13 colonies did -- technically also adopted trial by combat, and there's been no decisive appellate ruling on it since.

Michigan was established in 1837, however, so if it adopted British common law at the time, that would exclude trial by combat, so OP may be out of luck on that front. OTOH if it adopted the common law of the other American states, then trial by combat may still be valid there unless it's been expressly repealed by statute.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I did not say trial by combat. Break out the legal history book. :colbert:

They're going to need to find up to 6 regular townswomen.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:05

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Kimsemus posted:

Shoutout to VanSandman for his blessed quote of the OP for posterity forever.

I have so much not legal advice to give, most of which is "stop doing that!"

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:28

Atticus_1354: Dec 10, 2006; barkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbarkbark

I just love the "I dont believe in laws or the authority of the court" attitude coupled with him running to a bunch of lawyers for help. What did he expect to happen?

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:30

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

spacetoaster posted:

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I did not say trial by combat. Break out the legal history book.

They're going to need to find up to 6 regular townswomen.

A trial by congress doesn't make any sense though, this isn't an impotence case?

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:31

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

My head says troll attempt but my heart wants it to be true.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:31

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

A trial by congress doesn't make any sense though, this isn't an impotence case?

It makes as much sense as his post.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:33

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Soothing Vapors posted:

Great posts guys. Very helpful.

"Nuisance Percy" would be a great band name though.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 20:55

BonerGhost: Mar 9, 2007

SovCit thinking his property rights trump his neighbors' and coming to lawyers for help sounds dumb enough to be true, but not nearly enough words were misspelled.

4/10

# ? Aug 5, 2019 21:04

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

Even sovcits have enough brains to use the automatic browser spellcheck but nobody who knows ANYTHING about law could have made that post.

I have met this stupid a person before and they could absolutely have asked me this.

I bet you the guy will double down after any and all criticism.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 21:41

HisMajestyBOB: Oct 21, 2010; College Slice

Alchenar posted:

My head says troll attempt but my heart wants it to be true.

His post does not have a gold fringe so that makes it true, except in jurisdictions falling under maritime law.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 22:00

toplitzin: Jun 13, 2003

spacetoaster posted:

You're going to have to demand a trial by congress.

I love death by SnuSnu.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 22:01

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Still laughing at �nuisance percy�

# ? Aug 5, 2019 23:33

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Omg that story is incredible

quote:

My wife and I wrote a very polite but very firm letter back to the Court saying that we did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Michigan Court and so we would not be appearing, as it was none of the Michigan Court�s business. We received a letter back from the Court saying that our letter was an answer, which it obviously was, and there were some dates listed.

Lol owned

# ? Aug 5, 2019 23:35

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

Hey OP, come back, I have a real question for you.

How does one not consider willingly living in a state not indicative of consent to be governed by that state

Extra Q I�m interested in your feedback on: why do your rights extend to your neighbor�s property but their rights don�t extend to yours? Did you consider that maybe they don�t consent to your rule?

# ? Aug 5, 2019 23:40

Anonymous Zebra: Oct 21, 2005; Blending in like it ain't no thang

Y'all really need to click the button and read his older posts in this thread. I knew I remembered him posting here about a year ago, and you're missing out if you don't go back and read them.

# ? Aug 5, 2019 23:50

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Soothing Vapors posted:

Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?

It makes me absolutely sick when lawyers try to defend their cottage industry by claiming that the common man can't understand case law. It's called common law for a reason -- it's meant for the common man to understand, not to be shielded by a protectionist guild of elitist pricks. If he's dug as deeply as he says he has into the issue, I'm sure he has SOME understanding of it.

Omg.

(That�s not why it�s called common law)

# ? Aug 5, 2019 23:54

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

More like �come on, law!�

# ? Aug 6, 2019 00:02

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

If you are going to assert the court lacks jurisdiction over you you probably should NOT write it letters *

Just an FYI for later

Dear Michigan Court

You have no jurisdiction over me.

Signed,

man who lives in and has property in Michigan.

* evil lawyers know how to do this but won�t tell you for free

# ? Aug 6, 2019 00:04

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

euphronius posted:

If you are going to assert the court lacks jurisdiction over you you probably should NOT write it letters *

Just an FYI for later

Dear Michigan Court

You have no jurisdiction over me.

Signed,

man who lives in and has property in Michigan.

* evil lawyers know how to do this but won�t tell you for free

The case has been removed to an Admiralty Court and I am much happier. All the fringe you could hope for.

Thank you for the legal advice provided during the free consultation.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 00:10

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

euphronius posted:

Omg.

(That�s not why it�s called common law)

I missed this little tidbit and it's extra funny

gently caress lawyers and incomprehensible laws tbh

should just go back to beating each other to death when we disagree

# ? Aug 6, 2019 00:24

Lowness 72: Jul 19, 2006; BUTTS LOL; Jade Ear Joe

My lawyer can beat up your lawyer

# ? Aug 6, 2019 00:32

Bad Titty Puker: Nov 3, 2007; Soiled Meat

Anonymous Zebra posted:

Y'all really need to click the button and read his older posts in this thread. I knew I remembered him posting here about a year ago, and you're missing out if you don't go back and read them.

quote:

A big part of problem is that most people, yourself included, don't even understand the freeman's ideology. The ABA is an extremely powerful, protectionist organization, and they're out there running NONSTOP interference trying to make freemen who attempt to take the law into their own hands look bad. Look at these f*cking hitpieces run by an allegedly "neutral" organization:

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/..._legal_filings/
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...itizen_approach
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...t_federal_judge
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti..._and_prosecutor
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti..._not_absolve_hi

Look at the PEJORATIVE, needless language the ABA journal throws around. A freeman isn't just wrong in the eyes of the ABA, he's "HAPLESS." A pro se litigant isn't just wrong in the eyes of the ABA, he's "UNINTELLIGIBLE." These aren't the words of a neutral authority -- they're the words of a guild trying to prevent the free market (the PUBLIC in this case) from competing fairly with guild members.

Almost everything you know -- or "think" you know -- about the freeman movement comes from drivel you're fed by the ABA and its stooges (aka the 10.3 million lawyers currently infesting the united states). Do a little research sometime on non-ABA associated sites and you might understand the ideology a little better.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 01:58

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL POST I FUCKIN NEED THIS

# ? Aug 6, 2019 02:02

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

blarzgh posted:

WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL POST I FUCKIN NEED THIS

quote:

So I'm a little frustrated by the Michigan Court right now and I thought maybe one of the guild members in this thread could shine some light on exactly how you get a Court officer to back off.

A little background: in 2016 my neighbors to the left and right of my homestead spent a LOT of effort decorating their yards with political signs. They had different political views so it seemed like they were trying to 1-up each other. The left neighbor (let's call her Debbie Democrat) put up a TON of Hillary signs and the right neighbor (Reggie Republican) of course put up a bunch of pro-Trump garbage. My wife and I don't believe in the u.s. federal system so it was a little obnoxious to us, and we gently but firmly reminded our neighbors of our property rights and asked them to take their signage down. They of course refused.

Flash forward to 2018 and I've saved up the money to put up a little signage of my own in front of of my own homestead. - its a 12 sheet billboard framed in a very tasteful light halo. together, with the Gadsden flag emblazoned on it. We also installed some floodlighting to accentuate the design and draw attention to it, and rigged some LEDs to make both the snake and the words "DON'T TREAD ON ME" glow.

I will admit we were being a little petty and wanted to piss off our extremely rude neighbors, but we were unprepared for both how Debbie and Reggie lost their minds. Police were called (we did not allow them on our property of course), reports were made to the city (We ignored the letters from the City, who have no Jurisdiction over MY sovereign lawn) and so forth. Lots of dumb drama for months. Making a long story short, we got a letter from the Michigan Court a few months ago saying that our neighbors had sued us for creating a nuisance percy and the Court wanted us to appear in person.

My wife and I wrote a very polite but very firm letter back to the Court saying that we did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Michigan Court and so we would not be appearing, as it was none of the Michigan Court's business. We received a letter back from the Court saying that our letter was an answer, which it obviously was, and there were some dates listed. Since we had already explained politely to the Court that my billboard was not their concern, I threw the second letter away and thought no more of it.

Last week my wife apparently received a letter from the Michigan Court stating that we now had some sort of liability to our neighbors. She threw it away and so I'm not sure exactly what that liability is supposed to . But so what exactly do I need to do to get it through the Michigan Court's head that I will not be taking my sign down and that this is none of their concern? And given that they arleady acknowledged that I answered their Court letter with a rejection, what is the point of continuing this conversation? I'm assuming the issue here is just some petty overzealous clerk trying to flex his muscle. How do you find a Court clerk's supervisor?

# ? Aug 6, 2019 02:20

BonerGhost: Mar 9, 2007

E: f;b

VanSandman quoted it for all of us above, reposting so nothing happens to it:

Soothing Vapors posted:

So I'm a little frustrated by the Michigan Court right now and I thought maybe one of the guild members in this thread could shine some light on exactly how you get a Court officer to back off.

A little background: in 2016 my neighbors to the left and right of my homestead spent a LOT of effort decorating their yards with political signs. They had different political views so it seemed like they were trying to 1-up each other. The left neighbor (let's call her Debbie Democrat) put up a TON of Hillary signs and the right neighbor (Reggie Republican) of course put up a bunch of pro-Trump garbage. My wife and I don't believe in the u.s. federal system so it was a little obnoxious to us, and we gently but firmly reminded our neighbors of our property rights and asked them to take their signage down. They of course refused.

Flash forward to 2018 and I've saved up the money to put up a little signage of my own in front of of my own homestead. - its a 12 sheet billboard framed in a very tasteful light halo. together, with the Gadsden flag emblazoned on it. We also installed some floodlighting to accentuate the design and draw attention to it, and rigged some LEDs to make both the snake and the words "DON'T TREAD ON ME" glow.

I will admit we were being a little petty and wanted to piss off our extremely rude neighbors, but we were unprepared for both how Debbie and Reggie lost their minds. Police were called (we did not allow them on our property of course), reports were made to the city (We ignored the letters from the City, who have no Jurisdiction over MY sovereign lawn) and so forth. Lots of dumb drama for months. Making a long story short, we got a letter from the Michigan Court a few months ago saying that our neighbors had sued us for creating a nuisance percy and the Court wanted us to appear in person.

My wife and I wrote a very polite but very firm letter back to the Court saying that we did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Michigan Court and so we would not be appearing, as it was none of the Michigan Court's business. We received a letter back from the Court saying that our letter was an answer, which it obviously was, and there were some dates listed. Since we had already explained politely to the Court that my billboard was not their concern, I threw the second letter away and thought no more of it.

Last week my wife apparently received a letter from the Michigan Court stating that we now had some sort of liability to our neighbors. She threw it away and so I'm not sure exactly what that liability is supposed to . But so what exactly do I need to do to get it through the Michigan Court's head that I will not be taking my sign down and that this is none of their concern? And given that they arleady acknowledged that I answered their Court letter with a rejection, what is the point of continuing this conversation? I'm assuming the issue here is just some petty overzealous clerk trying to flex his muscle. How do you find a Court clerk's supervisor?

Hey OP why do you think you have the right to dictate what your neighbors do with their sovereign lawns?

BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 6, 2019

# ? Aug 6, 2019 02:21

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

BonerGhost posted:

E: f;b

VanSandman quoted it for all of us above, reposting so nothing happens to it:

Hey OP why do you think you have the right to dictate what your neighbors do with their sovereign lawns?

He did let them dictate what they did with their sovereign lawns. Then he did the same.

[Cue follow-on question about Castle Doctrine and Mk 19s]

# ? Aug 6, 2019 02:29

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

We also installed some floodlighting to accentuate the design and draw attention to it, and rigged some LEDs to make both the snake and the words �DON�T TREAD ON ME� glow.

Just lol until the end of time

# ? Aug 6, 2019 03:12

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Soothing Vapors posted:

Great posts guys. Very helpful.

If you can find a Freeman Court you can try to file a lien against the Court's assets for any damages they have caused you by their attempt to create joinder with you.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 03:34

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

I don�t know what�s real

# ? Aug 6, 2019 03:39

flowinprose: Sep 11, 2001; Where were you? .... when they built that ladder to heaven...

I feel like the only applicable law in this case is Poe's Law.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 05:58

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

I still want to say that this is a troll by someone who needs something to do when they're stuck indoors in the August heat.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 12:25

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

SV is obvious but I can�t tell who he�s actually hooked

# ? Aug 6, 2019 12:53

null_pointer: Nov 9, 2004; Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop.

I really appreciate SV's commitment to his craft; trolling a legal advice thread with a series of effort-posts over a span of months requires a certain type of dedication you don't typically see. It's like making carefully crafted shitposts in a lightly travelled knitting thread.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 13:39

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Phil Moscowitz posted:

SV is obvious but I can�t tell who he�s actually hooked

He got me. I got real mad that he deleted it like "this dumbass..." then I checked the post history because it was too funny to be real.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 14:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 00:48

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Don�t feel bad, it was a well executed troll. Let�s move on so he can bag more people in eight months when he comes back.

# ? Aug 6, 2019 14:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›1198 »