Hoax Museum  >  Forum Home  >  Hoax Forum  >  Conspiracy Theories  >  Thread
Sovereign Citizens - a legal dissection.
 
Robin Bobcat
Posted: 30 November 2013 05:52 PM
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

Bumbling about the internet, I found a lovely bundle of joy in the form of a Canadian judge outlining the Sovereign Citizen concept in exacting detail.

You may remember the ‘fun’ that was had when one such came here after I reposted his rant {‘Furry Conspiracist Rant’).

The judge calls them Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (“OPCA litigants”), as there is a broad spectrum of such individuals and groups.

Long, but worth a read.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?
Profile
 
gray
Posted: 08 December 2013 01:03 PM   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5555
Joined  2007-03-14

That’s probably the best outline of the theory I’ve read.  He does lay it out pretty well doesn’t he.

 Signature 

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Seen on a tshirt - “If life gives you melons you may be dyslexic”

When life hands you lemons make apple juice. Then laugh while life tries to figure out how you did it.

My blog
My Website
Profile
 
Robin Bobcat
Posted: 09 December 2013 04:24 PM   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

Yeah.. the one thing I did find interesting is that he could find NO case in which such techniques had held up in court, which means that the complicated procedures and the like are for the benefit of the person selling the idea to gullible clients…

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?
Profile
 
gray
Posted: 18 December 2013 08:26 PM   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5555
Joined  2007-03-14

Well, to be fair, I think he was only looking at Canadian case law.  There may be an instance in another country where it worked.  I doubt it though.

 Signature 

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Seen on a tshirt - “If life gives you melons you may be dyslexic”

When life hands you lemons make apple juice. Then laugh while life tries to figure out how you did it.

My blog
My Website
Profile
 
Robin Bobcat
Posted: 28 December 2013 11:14 AM   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

No, I think I recall he was also examining the US cases as well, though they weren’t cited or referenced the same as the Canadian ones were, as it’s a Canadian legal document.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?
Profile
 
‹‹ Meanwhile in the UK...      A Nelson Mandela conspiracy ››