Sovereign citizens and pseudolaw

[Politruk]

The PB has mostly been refreshingly free of this particular form of idiocy, but it does pop up occasionally.

The sovereign citizens seem to think the public law is something they can opt out of. That is simply ridiculous by itself -- what might give it a certain pseudointellectual appeal is the underlying theory. The sovcits appear to have confused or conflated the "common law" with natural law -- meaning, the common law can never change, just as the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry never change. Now, any lawyer trained in a common-law system will tell you that while it is continuous with the law of medieval England, the common law changes all the time, can change with any judicial ruling.

There are related beliefs that have some currency. It is not true that the U.S. is under "admiralty law," or that a court's jurisdiction is affected by whether the flag in the courtroom has a fringe on it, or that Federal Reserve notes are not real, constitutional money, or that there is anything legally irregular about the federal income tax.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.3676556117.0987/bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg

 

[Politruk]

Regarding pseudolaw:

Signs of pseudolaw[edit]​

Much like pseudoscience, one of the first hints that a legal theory is pseudolaw is when it bucks against established legal consensus and precedent. However, while necessary, this is not a sufficient condition. Much of currently accepted law was once against precedent. The primary thing to look for is if the legal theory or argument has been tried before a court and whether it was rejected. If an argument has been rejected by the courts on a repeated basis, it is usually, but not invariably, the case that someone attempting to push that argument is practicing pseudolaw.

While the ultimate test of pseudolaw is how it is ultimately perceived and used in a court of law (just as with pseudoscience, the ultimate test is how it performs with predictions against empirical reality), there are many red flags that can identify pseudolaw even without a court ruling. These include, but are not limited to:

• Overreliance on technicalities such as spelling or grammar. For example, some people argue that the traditional use of all-capital letters for names in court briefings means that the documents are referring to a different entity than the actual person in the case.[3] See, for instance, David Wynn Miller.
• Overreliance on dictionary definitions, particularly definitions from outdated copies of Black's Law Dictionary – a common US claim is that driver's licenses are not necessary for most drivers, since older copies of Black's Law define driving as the transport of commercial goods, and the right to travel via conveyance (including a motor vehicle) supposedly extends to operating said vehicle as well.
• Belief in and use of common lay-person misconceptions about the law. The pseudolawyer may perpetuate the idea that a contract can only be created by a written form and signature, that you can't be convicted of murder without a body, that permission isn't necessary to upload a copyrighted work as long as you admit "I do not own this," etc.
• Quoting Supreme Court cases out of context, usually one or two sentences, or sometimes even a phrase. Tax protesters are fond of quoting Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) to argue that the income tax is illegal. However, the ruling is not saying that the 16th Amendment did not provide power to tax income, but rather that Congress already had that power. This is classic quote mining.
• Reference to other arguments that have been rejected as frivolous by courts. Pseudolaw concepts flock together and cross-pollinate.
• Arguments that refer to the United States of America as "Incorporated[4]" or to the Federal government somehow seeming to be a private enterprise or company.[5]
• Jurisdictional challenges that focus on claiming the federal government has no right to try cases in states. A favorite is to claim that any court with gold fringe on the flag is a "maritime" court and not a real court.[6]
• Arguments that the court, police, public officials, etc. have no authority over an individual unless that individual has consented to that authority. This is often phrased along the lines of "once you accept an attorney, you're bound by contract to the court, but if you refuse an attorney they have no authority." As an adjunct to these arguments, some hold the belief that it's possible to unwittingly consent to authority, such as if you sign your name on a Federal form or receive a Federal "benefit" such as receiving mail at your home's mailbox.
• Intense hatred of lawyers and the bar, reference to the bar as being run by the Illuminati or Masons, and encouraging people with little to no legal training to refuse appointed attorneys and proceed pro se.[7]
• References to the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the so-called "missing 13th Amendment" to the United States Constitution). Similarly, some pseudolawyers even argue that persons who use the title of "Esquire" (generally practicing attorneys)[note 1] are not Citizens and cannot hold public office.[8]
• Arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of "subject citizens" (lowercase c) of the Federal government, separate and distinct from the true Citizens (capital C) of the united States (lowercase u) that co-exist with them.
• References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png in cases which do not involve private commercial transactions (for example, citing the UCC in criminal, traffic, and tax cases).[9]
• References to "admiralty law" or "maritime law" in cases which clearly do not involve any matters which occurred at sea, in navigable waters, or outside the Earth's atmosphere.
• References to "military" or "martial law" in matters that do not involve the military or members thereof.
• Made up jargon from Latin that pseudolawyers claim derive from common law and give people special rights that others do not such as juris spurious when used in filing claims.[10]
• Misuse of legal terminology, often because pseudolawyers do not have a full understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss.
• Extraordinary claims such as being able to get anyone out of jail, no matter what they were convicted of, in a matter of weeks.[11]

 

[Politruk]

The PB has mostly been refreshingly free of this particular form of idiocy, but it does pop up occasionally.

Lately, pretty often from KingDJT -- always talking about Trump is going to return the U.S. to the common law. Common law is what we use now, in every state but Louisiana.

 

[Politruk]

Lately, pretty often from KingDJT -- always talking about Trump is going to return the U.S. to the common law. Common law is what we use now, in every state but Louisiana.

Here, for instance. Any mention of "maritime law" is red flag.

 

[Bray123]

Here, for instance. Any mention of "maritime law" is red flag.

They think maritime law is the time they have to marry their cousin.

 

[Politruk]

Here's another thing: The pseudolawyers are conspiracy theorists. They think the government has pulled a fast one, at some point substituting "maritime law" for "common law" in such a way that nobody noticed or caught on until quite recently.