Sovereign Citizens, QAnons, Cookers and Similar

[Irrev-Black]

Just in case any happen to be traveling as Living Persons, free upon the land, in this forum, here's a lovely WTFAQ video which provides a six-minute explanation and debunk.



Short version: Ask 'em for court transcripts of any cases where sovcittery has triumphed. Result = crickets.

[Irrev-Black]

Found this!

Sovcittery in court seems like a subspecies of Gish Gallop.

[Irrev-Black]

SovCits fuck up everything, even First Australian culture.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-12/ ... /102968566

[Irrev-Black]

An interesting resource re SovCittery in Oz, and (if I read it right) compiled by an ex-SovCit.

https://freemandelusion.com/

[url=file:///home/black/Downloads/Australian-Pseudolaw-Argumentation-580.pdf]My current reading from the site[/url], with an intro...

Australian Pseudolaw Argumentation

(An analysis by Robert R. Sudy – January 2023)

As observed by Donald J. Netolitzky KC in "A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw As a Revolutionary
Legal System", the pseudolaw memeplex has six core concepts:
1) Everything is a contract
2) Silence means agreement
3) Legal action requires an injured party
4) Government authority is defective or limited
5) The strawman duality
6) Monetary and banking conspiracy theories

The object of this article is to characterise 100 most commonly used individual Australian pseudolaw
arguments or motifs, in order to group them into an identifiable indicia or species of pseudo legal
thought, consistent with the format of these observations.

1. Everything is a contract
Pseudolaw adherents will interpret almost any direction by a police officer, or an invitation by a court for
compliance with court procedure, as the formation of a contract. Hence, they will refuse simple court
directions and processes, such as to pass the bar, sit, stand, enter a plea, or even acknowledge or
confirm their identity. They do not wish to make joinder in contract, believing this is what gives
authorities their jurisdiction. Authorities use “statute law” which to the adherent is “Maritime
Admiralty Law”, (the law of the sea, of commerce and contracts). They believe that for a statute to be
enforceable, either a contract must already exist, (through the shackled strawman duality) or the officer
is merely offering them an invitation to joinder in contract right there.

Hence they become rather pedantic over the use of words and terms and even gestures, believing that
certain commonly used words are also very serious legal terms or Legalese deceitfully intended to trick
the unwitting denizen into this alleged joinder. Whenever police or court officers use the word
“understand”, (eg: asking “Do you understand?”) they are talking in legal code for “Do you stand under
our authority?” The adherent is not ever “driving” a “vehicle”, (these are legal terms) they are “travelling”
in their “automobile” or “private conveyance”. So when asked, they reply that they are “not driving only
travelling“, expecting this response affords a reasonable excuse to unregistered and unlicenced fines.

They do not register their vehicles with the appropriate state authority, as that “Regis“ -tration” would
mean the formation of a contract transferring the title of the “automobile” to the king. The word Includes
holds special significance, as it is taken by the theory as having an exhaustive as opposed to expansive
function, so adherents use it to attempt to create an exemption, claiming they are not whatever
definition actually is in the statute, (eg: “person” or “driver” or “vehicle” etc.) If they find themselves
“under duress” in signing bail agreements or other documents, they will add “V.C.” or “vi coactus” in a
prepared attempt to later disregard and nullify the agreement.

And so it goes...

[Irrev-Black]

Canadian QAnon-sters appear to have bolted.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bqva/ ... -abandoned