But... It worked on YouTube!!!

[Mental_Mouse]

That makes sense, so where does the punctuation in names come from? I get that some people legitimately will sometimes have punctuation in their names (a hyphenated first or last name, for instance), but I don't get the colon in names. Because from what I've seen that's a common tactic, too.

It's not a legal thing, it's a magical thing. To gain power over something or someone, many magical traditions indicate you need (or at least badly want) to know it's True Name. Now, the courts are much concerned with identity, which is obviously linked to names. But the legal system "wasn't born yesterday", and is well-acquainted with people who to avoid the consequences of their actions by changing their name.

Similarly, the abuse of legal terminology, and trying to thus command the court to drop the case or otherwise submit to the sovcit's will, that's classic "cargo-cult" behavior. They, or their teachers, have seen how important precision and exact phrasing are to the legal system: At each step of a case, there are specific requirements made of cops, lawyers, judges, and other participants; a case can be thrown out, or a defense can collapse, because the paperwork is incorrect, or a lawyer invoked the wrong law, or any number of other technical errors.

Now, the sovcit thing is all about denying the special authority of the courts, attempting to claim that they are merely citizens operating with no more privilege than any other citizen (such as the current defendant). So the sovcit tries to imitate the apparent forms of the law, announcing his demands in the same manner as the actual officials, and when they were refused, declaring that the courts have failed to bind him. Never mind the fact that the sovcit does not in fact have the authority, position, or legal backing to make any such demands, nor to dismiss the actions of genuine legal officials..

[EricKei]

As I recall, one of the more infamous notions some SovCits (...SC's???) hold to is the one that having a flag with fringes on it in a courtroom makes that court an Admiralty Court, Maritime Court, or something similar, and, as such, unable to adjudicate civilian matters.

Another is that they like to claim that certain parts (esp Amendments) of the Constitution were never Ratified, or they will draw upon Articles from the document which the Constitution both suceeded and totally nullified by its very existence.

Note that there are certain of their beliefs which can lead to them being a direct physical threat to officers and others (without repercussion), so please save those bits for Fratching. Note that, last I checked, the Feds consider SovCit groups (collectively) to be terrorists.

[nutraxfornerves]

I was trying to find a succinct description of the flag fringe thing and I found a lulu. You see, a flag with a fringe means that the court can only enforce Admiralty law, the law of the see. That’s not a typo.The courts can only enforce the law of the Holy See, i.e. the Vatican. (I looked to see if it was satire; it wasn’t.)

I found a court ruling that sums it up a bit better

The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. To think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's jurisdiction is frivolous … Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction.

[Ironclad Alibi]

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Guess what? It's pun time!

The issues about fringe on the flag is always raised by fringe groups.

[dalesys]

... The issues about fringe on the flag is always raised by fringe groupies...

Fixed by a plurality.

[Jay 2K Winger]

Re: sovcit nonsense

I'd like to see things from these "sovereign citizens'" point of view, but I'd have my head so far up my own ass, I'd be able to smell what I had for breakfast.

[Ironclad Alibi]

It just happened again. A defendant tried to argue his way out of a traffic ticket by using something he saw a guy try on YouTube and filing a rambling motion of sorts he found on some web page that had nothing to do with the facts of the allegations or even the laws that apply to his charges.

It was not pretty, and he was not successful.

The defendant made a fatal mistake in his presentation. What he tried worked on YouTube, but he wasn't on YouTube. And that made all the difference in the world.

[Kit-Ginevra]

What about the Hutt River guys? Is that the same sort of thing as the sovereign citizens-that they're not actually part of Australia,so don't have to obey its laws.

That was kind of the argument that was used for the homelands-bits of South Africa were declared 'independent' and any coloured workers in South Africa were guest workers,and if they violated the law could be 'deported' back to their country.

And one travel company tried that trick-when a couple claimed for compensation for an injury that was incurred on a cruise by the travel company's negligence,the travel company tried claiming that since it was on the sea,they needed to go to the Admiralty Court and have it tried under maritime law...

[Mental_Mouse]

Dunno about the Hutt River thing, but what you describe sounds like the same sort of BSing. The travel company likewise, except that they clearly weren't considering the possible consequences of escalating too far. Or burning their bridges with the nation(s) of their customers.

The South African 'homelands' are not like the others -- that wasn't individuals trying to evade national law. Rather, it was more like the American use of Indian reservations: The government of a colonial nation, refusing citizen status and human rights to the area's original inhabitants.

[earl colby pottinger]

Did they

And one travel company tried that trick-when a couple claimed for compensation for an injury that was incurred on a cruise by the travel company's negligence,the travel company tried claiming that since it was on the sea,they needed to go to the Admiralty Court and have it tried under maritime law...

Did they consider that if the Admiralty Court ruled in the couple's favour that the couple could get salvage rights to the Travel Agency assets? The building might be a rental, but the agency may have problems if all their furniture and the company cars are hauled away.

[LadyofArc]

What about the Hutt River guys? Is that the same sort of thing as the sovereign citizens-that they're not actually part of Australia,so don't have to obey its laws.

Not quite - they created a micronation, but unlike most cases of micronations, these guys are taking it seriously. Both the "former prince" and his son have been ordered to pay their back taxes, which are now in the millions.

Oh and unlike most sov-cit nuts, these guys have the dubious honour of the Australian government going so far as to make it clear on some of their websites that the micronation is not recognised.

[Mental_Mouse]

Having wandered back to a classic thread about scammers on my favorite blog, I'm reminded of where the sovcits and tax rebels actually do get their ideas: There is a whole separate crew of scammers that sell them the schemes, before making themselves scarce. Interestingly, the scammers themselves often do pay their taxes... not that that helps them if the IRS manages to track them down.

[Argabarga]

A lot of those sovcit proponents have actually had court injunctions filed against them telling them in no uncertain terms "Income Tax/traffic tickets is/are legal, your argument that they aren't is invalid, attempting to even teach other people that it is valid constitutes fraud since you are now knowingly telling people something the highest courts have said is wrong and illegal, if you so much as hold a seminar and we find out about it, it's contempt of court, stop that s*it now"

And they still do it.... and eventually go to jail for it if they're sloppy. But by then, they usually have already set a few hundred more kooks loose on the system.

[Mental_Mouse]

Well, it's hard to spot someone "teaching a course" or just selling books/videos, before they've had a chance to cash the checks and disappear.