Actual lawyer here. Just in case anyone was somehow unsure, this is utter nonsense.
In fact, calling it nonsense might be giving nonsense a bad name. Completely deranged might be better.
But yes. These people do exist. And they are a pain in the fucking ass. Every 100th filing they actually say something that does have legal precedent, and that you can’t ignore. So you have to actually read every line of their bullshit. Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign…
But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.
I’ve heard what SovCits do being referred to as paper terrorism.
Yep, this is a common expression, and I fully endorse it.
Do you have a public example of a sovereign saying something that has precedent?
The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I’m not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can’t upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I’m probably doing something wrong, haven’t shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I’ll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I’d appreciate it, but I can’t spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.
But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity’s sake. It’s not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but…), it’s that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don’t respond, you lose.
The article said don’t engage them in face to face arguments because they’re insane and that’s a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.
Okay well I just uploaded it to an imgur album. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/yoJch6n
deleted by creator
I thought of this same clip as I was reading this BS. Bird law is absolutely not governed by reason.