|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
Uhh international maritime law jurisdiction starts 3nm for some countries and 24nm offshore for the u.s. With the u.s. also having a 200nm fishery enforcement zone. Anything less than 24nm is territorial waters and under the jurisdiction of state (3nm) and federal laws. Are these crazy people committing crimes 24 miles offshore? Even if you murder someone on a cruse ship in international waters the ship will just pull into port and the local authorities will then have jurisdiction usually or where the vessel is flagged. Also if you are a u.s. citizen or are a u.s. Flagged vessel (lol) federal laws and sometime state laws apply. If you have no flag then any country can have jurisdiction. How can people even warp this to mean they dont have to pay taxes? The person claiming to be a boat would still be within 24nm and would still be under jurisdiction, also not being flagged. Just hit them with thousands of dollars in fees for not being a boat that is registered properly, plus the cost of the ticket they were trying to avoid on top of that. Crash74 has a new favorite as of 15:28 on May 22, 2016 |
#
?
May 22, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Crash74 posted:How can people even warp this to mean they dont have to pay taxes? SovCits are frequently incredibly stupid, very crazy, or utterly desperate to get out of something. Sometimes more than one of those. Well often all of them, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
And despite believing themselves to have magic get out of jail free powers, they all seem to spend significantly more time in court than the average person.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
When you are born you are given a berth certificate because the government creates a legal fiction of a person (in all caps) to secure its sovereign debt. This is because the 14th amendment created federal citizens as opposed to sovereign citizens of the states. Anyone who would have qualified to be a sovereign citizen before the 14th (not made a federal citizen by the 14th) has legal immunities and, since they are not a slave of the state, access to the bond the government takes out on them when their berth certificate was issued. Plus, there is a distinction between the freeborn person and the legally fictitious person (henceforth PERSON in capitals to distinguish it). Fir example, you as a freeman have the right of travel. So if a police officer pulls you over they only have legal power over YOU. Since you aren't a legal fiction and are a freeman on the land, the police officer can't force you to stay they can't fine you but they can force YOU to stay and fine YOU. The only officer of the law that has any power over you is the sheriff and that has to be done via arbitration.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
What makes Sov's even funnier is ForeignSov's trying to pull that same poo poo like in, Australia, or the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When you are born you are given a berth certificate Guess he is a boat. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:SovCits are frequently incredibly stupid, very crazy, or utterly desperate to get out of something. Sometimes more than one of those. Well often all of them, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:... They don't think they're boats; that's from a sweet burn dropped by a judge who had a client declare that because the flag had gold fringe, the court was an admiralty court. The judge said "OK, I will pretend you are a boat," then continued with what he was saying. Sovcits draw a magical distinction between, eg Joe Schmoe (a legal fiction to which legal responsibilities are attached, like owing taxes) and the person Joe of the family Schmoe (that's how they like to phrase it). There is no legal connection between the two entities unless you create joinder by somehow acknowledging legal authority, or presumably allowing them to learn your true name or trick you into entering a magic circle. Edit: I phone type slowly Blue Footed Booby has a new favorite as of 00:32 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves British Common Law is the basis of pretty much all legal systems in the western world. Because...I guess that matters? Not really, the Napoleonic Code largely supplanted systems in the Francophone and Hispanic worlds. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Crash74 posted:How can people even warp this to mean they dont have to pay taxes? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When you are born you are given a berth certificate because the government creates a legal fiction of a person (in all caps) to secure its sovereign debt. This is because the 14th amendment created federal citizens as opposed to sovereign citizens of the states. Anyone who would have qualified to be a sovereign citizen before the 14th (not made a federal citizen by the 14th) has legal immunities and, since they are not a slave of the state, access to the bond the government takes out on them when their berth certificate was issued. Plus, there is a distinction between the freeborn person and the legally fictitious person (henceforth PERSON in capitals to distinguish it). LOL for people assuming that the goverment has the foresight and ability to plan for its own financial stability on a yearly basis let alone scam on some joe schlub redneck for pocket change. Sorry crazy person you are attached to your other self and so must be seperated in half so the guilty you can do hard time. Do you want it vertically or horizontally? *some dude comes in with one of thoes huge old timey lumber jack saws.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:SovCits are frequently incredibly stupid, very crazy, or utterly desperate to get out of something. Sometimes more than one of those. Well often all of them, actually. I love when Sovereign Citizens gently caress with cops and the officer is having none of their poo poo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM Some of it does go a bit far but at about a minute in is still my favorite of any video with these morons where the officer just grabs the top of his window, yanks and the loving thing explodes outwards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Tracula posted:I love when Sovereign Citizens gently caress with cops and the officer is having none of their poo poo. That second clip is too much. gently caress those assholes who pull this poo poo in front of their kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Some of it does go a bit far but at about a minute in is still my favorite of any video with these morons where the officer just grabs the top of his window, yanks and the loving thing explodes outwards. A lot of car windows are designed to do that for cop and rescue workers. You could probably do it. His utterly casual attitude about the whole action is what really sells it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Oh yeah I know the glass is meant to break like that incase of an accident so you get little bits everywhere instead of jagged death spikes. As you said though it's great how casual he is and in so many cases the cops start out nice and progressively get more and more pissed at the childish antics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
I always like the ones where near the end the sovcit starts to go "no don't break the window I'll open the do--" but too late the cop has given them enough chances and now they have a broken window.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
The Lago Agrio case is one of my favorites, not least because it's still going. Basically, back in the 90s, an oil company called Texaco jointly ran an oil field with Ecuador's state oil company. Eventually, Texaco pulled out, cleaned up their mess, and the government of Eucador signed off on the cleanup being ok. Then, 30,000 people from the area sued Texaco (which was aquired by Chevron in 2001) and claimed various and sundry injuries from toxic waste, et cetera. The entire thing was headed up by a guy name Steven R. Donziger. At first the case was set in Eucador, and Chevron lost and was ordered to pay 18 billion. Chevron grew suspicious and gathered some evidence (including a bunch of outtakes from a propaganda film produced by Donziger and his buddies) showing that this entire thing was basically a fraud from start to finish-- the judges were corrupt and the decision was basically ghost written by the lawyers involved in the case, plus most of the people who were part of the case never worked for Texaco, and so on and so forth. US courts agreed with Chevron, and Chevron promptly told Donziger and company to get hosed. Chevron managed to get an injunction put in place by a US judge, forbidding the attempted enforcement of the judgement against them anywhere in the world. Donziger subsequently was sued by Chevron under RICO and lost. Donziger is currently attempting to get out of having to pay triple damages to Chevron, to the tune of 100+ million dollars.  Related entities are still trying (and failing) to enforce the judgement against Chevron in various locales around the world. ugh its Troika has a new favorite as of 19:29 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Why does he have to pay triple damages? I get him having to pay damages, but why are they tripled?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Ultimate Shrek Fan posted:Why does he have to pay triple damages? I get him having to pay damages, but why are they tripled? RICO has mandatory triple damage awards built in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Ultimate Shrek Fan posted:Why does he have to pay triple damages? I get him having to pay damages, but why are they tripled? My understanding of these things is limited but from what I recall RICO is basically what the Americans pull out when they really want to gently caress you. It's deliberately designed to be cripplingly punitive because it's made specifically for catching mafia dons or the leaders of drug cartels who would normally buy their way out of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
That being said, the standards for RICO are also pretty high, so it's hard to actually nail someone on it. You have to be a pretty big piece of poo poo for that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
RICO was designed specifically to gently caress the mob and gently caress them hard. Essentially, if someone in your organization commits two or more of a certain enumerated list of crimes (murder, trafficking, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, money laundering-- there's a good amount of them), then everyone above that person that can be shown to have ordered or assisted them can be convicted and face up to 20 years per charge. In practice, the low-level guys get nabbed and threatened with a RICO charge, which often is a de facto life sentence-- they generally turn on their bosses and cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for a plea to lesser sentences. Once the train gets rolling, it generally keeps chugging along until it catches the top of the pyramid. This is why the mafia is a shell of its former self-- everyone went to jail forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
I know admiralty law chat was a while back, but here's a good one: Captain Schettino, who commanded the Costa Concordia when she went aground off Italy, killing 32 people, sued Costa Cruises for wrongful termination. For reference, this is the mess he made before getting fired:  There were concerns that the incident could bankrupt the entire marine insurance industry. FrozenVent has a new favorite as of 06:29 on Jul 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
OH MY GOD she was trying to do a cool trick. They just didn't let her finish rolling a cruise ship like a canoe. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Captain Schettino is a dude. The "she" Frozen Vent was referring to was the ship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:There were concerns that the incident could bankrupt the entire marine insurance industry. Too bad it didn't, insurance companies are loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Oh god I can't find the specific case citation, but there's a great case where the Canadian government is suing Perrier for, well -- Canadian tax law stated that a "Carbonated Beverage" came under one regime, but a "Drink" came under a totally different one, which was taxed higher. Perrier were importing sparkling water into Canada under the first bracket, and the government sued them for trying to cheat on their taxes. This led to the most impressively sarcastic judge I've ever seen, who is just loving furious that millions of dollars are on the line for the difference between a "drink" and a "beverage", and just cannot loving believe anything any of the parties are saying. Perrier won, because (I'm paraphrasing), "I want you to imagine you are in a restaurant in Vancouver, and the waiter asks which beverage you'd like. If you asked for a sparkling water, would he then rear up and say "I asked which BEVERAGE you would like, sir. However, I will get you a sparkling water if you wish." No, I do not believe he would."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
No discussion of Canadian judges being awesome should go without a link to Meads v. Meads (highlight reel; full decision here.)
AlbieQuirky has a new favorite as of 23:22 on Jul 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
The general pattern I've seen is that Canada has the funniest judges, and Australia has the craziest plaintiffs. To appreciate judges though, you have to understand how they talk: they're understated to an almost frightening degree. Example: there's an Aussie case (Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379) where a man tried to go through a turnstile without paying, then a "confrontation" occurred with the ticket guy which included swearing and punching. The turnstile-jumper then sued the ticket guy for assault and false imprisonment. The judge called him a 'disagreeable man'; jumping a turnstile, punching the ticket guy, then suing the ticket guy for punching you back is merely 'disagreeable' . When you see a judge use stronger language than that, you know poo poo has gotten real. An NZ judge in a different lawsuit used the phrase 'catastrophic damage' to refer to the result of a faulty inspection, and when I googled that poo poo: 1) the house was unrecognisable as a house 2) the land on which the house was built is totally uninhabitable 3) the land will remain uninhabitable forever 4) the adjacent properties are mostly intact, but condemned (the property underwent a weird lateral shift that the geologist on trial was totally baffled by, and the land ripped in half) That use of 'catastrophic' is the strongest adjective I've ever seen in a tort case. Once you cotton on to that kinda understatement, you realise that judges are salty all the drat time but they speak in such a way to mask it. My favourite Australian case is Davies v Bennison (1927) 22 Tas LR 52. The facts: 1) the plaintiff, Ms Davies, owned a noisy cat. 2) the cat would yowl all night from on top of the roof of her shed 3) Mr Bennison, the defendant, got pissed off and shot the cat with a rifle, killing it so far, so normal. Here is where it gets weird: 4) Ms Davies took Mr Bennison to court for trespass, claiming that his bullet entered her property without her permission. 5) Mr Bennison claimed in his defence that the body of the dead cat was still on the roof of the shed, and his bullet had therefore never touched the ground. 6) the judge had to decide whether you could trespass on somebody's property if your feet never touch the ground. loving Australian cases, man. They never go in the direction you think they're gonna.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:6) the judge had to decide whether you could trespass on somebody's property if your feet never touch the ground. It better, so that hovering creeps can't trespass. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
I think the worst kind of Sovereign Citizens aren't the idiots who try to get out of taxes or court appearances with magical words but the ones who use it to be dicks for no loving reason. I've seen so many videos of cops pulling guys over for speeding and they're super polite and asking for the normal stuff and the SC is just a confrontational rear end in a top hat. "Excuse me, license and registration please?" "UH, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY I MUST COMPLY? PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE IMPEDED MY PROGRESS? WHY HAVE YOU DETAINED ME?" SC are just people that desperately want to be in an argument at all times. My favorite was a video of a guy in Britain who is fleeing from police and when the cops finally pull him over he acts like them being angry and asking for him to leave his car is a nightmarish infringement of his rights. I believe he calls the cops busting down his window that he refuses to roll down "Thuggery".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
SCs believe they are persecuted, like Christians tend to think, and that any inconvenience is communazi big brother cracking down on the free man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
I just have a hard time believing SCs really live their lives by the bullshit they spout. Like when they apply for a job do they go on rants to the interviewer that the name on the resume is a corporate construct and all that and they are acting as an agent for the person applying? Or does this mumbo jumbo only apply to law enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:I just have a hard time believing SCs really live their lives by the bullshit they spout. Like when they apply for a job do they go on rants to the interviewer that the name on the resume is a corporate construct and all that and they are acting as an agent for the person applying? Or does this mumbo jumbo only apply to law enforcement? You think these people actually have jobs? It's not like anyone would tolerate working with them for any length of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
There was a really good article about how a lot of the SC doctrine was snapped up and popularized by hate groups who use it at trials and such to desperately try and confuse the courts and game the systems in their favor, plus it goes with a lot of their militia style "THE GUBMIT IS EVIL!" beliefs. The article when into a case of a trial where a gang member used it at his murder trial and the judge essentially said "You're literally ruining any chance of leniency with this nonsense and none of it is going to work anyway."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:I just have a hard time believing SCs really live their lives by the bullshit they spout. Like when they apply for a job do they go on rants to the interviewer that the name on the resume is a corporate construct and all that and they are acting as an agent for the person applying? Or does this mumbo jumbo only apply to law enforcement? It applies when they want it to apply and at no other times, which is why they insist the government can only control the hypothetical person on their birth certificate yet still receive the supposed benefits the hypothetical person is entitled to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Oh god I can't find the specific case citation, but there's a great case where the Canadian government is suing Perrier for, well -- There's a similar case in the UK where it was called into question whether a Jaffa Cake is, in fact, a small cake or a biscuit. It was determined to be a cake, because it hardens as it goes stale rather than going soft. Hardcordion has a new favorite as of 19:57 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:4) Ms Davies took Mr Bennison to court for trespass, claiming that his bullet entered her property without her permission. If a frisbee lands on the roof a house that's not yours, it's still on the roof of a house. You've just been served Timmy, see you in court (Why wouldn't she sue for vandalism, destruction of property, animal cruelty, etc? Was this an additional complaint she was suing for?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
You don't sue for those - they're crimes. It's not clear from the civil case (lawsuit) I read whether there was also a simultaneous criminal case (most likely animal cruelty) but the cat's owner clearly thought it wasn't enough to only let the police deal with it. There aren't many viable torts I can see from the case, so I guess they went trespass to property. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress might be viable, but I don't think it existed in the common law at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure the most applicable tort would be conversion, i.e. intentional misuse of another's property. I have no idea why they'd try arguing trespass over conversion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 21:25
|
|
