149
The use of “over stand” in place of “understand” suggests that they may be some kind of Rastafarian sovcit. Are those a phenomenon?
Yes! They also say "eye" in place of "I".
Black sovcits tend to call themselves Moorish Delegates.
Do they inherit specifically Rastafarian linguistic taboos, like swapping positive and negative word fragments where appropriate (so “understand” becomes “overstand” and “oppression” becomes “downpression”)?
No idea, I tune them out when they start talking, as I do for the white sovcits.
God bless the Unitided States! 😂
Isn’t the US currency issued by the US government? So they demand money issued by a government that they refuse to accept? So many brain confusion. Or do I not understand their position?
Or do I not understand their position?
You have as firm an understanding as they do 😄
🤣
"Over stand." No notes. You got this, pal. Way to go, idiot. Whew.
It seems to be a favorite phrase of theirs. I assume it has some mystic power in their minds like pretty much everything that they spout. But I probably haven't taken enough hallucinogens to be able to understand their logic.
You mean overstand their logic.
Well you see I'm just a smooth skin so I only "understand" things.
Here's a contract without your signature! That's how contracts work right?
It works for EULAS.
Good comparison; there is a difference in that EULAs give you a consent button that you have to click; the idea is that, by clicking "I accept these terms," you accept the terms.
I believe EULAs have still not been tried in court, but there is a difference between "I sent you something and so now we have a contract" and "I presented the terms and you voluntarily clicked the 'I accept' button and so now we have a contract." The law does recognize "gentleman's handshake" contracts (they've just been hard to prove), and EULAs would fall under that category of contract.
EULAs are untested, but what SovCit is trying is a gentleman's handshake where the handshake is some arbitrary behavior that SovCit has defined as being the agreement terms. That's where this would fall apart; in a verbal agreement, both parties agree not only to the contract, but to what constitutes agreement. One side can't simply make a binding declaration and define what constitutes acceptance. It's like saying, "You owe me $100,000. By breathing, you signify that you accept these terms." In a court, you could reasonably argue that the fact that you agreed, spat in your, and shook on it is by convention a clear sign of acceptance and binding. It'd be impossible to successively argue that I sent you a contract stating that if you crossed the street it constituted acceptance. SovCit is trying the latter.
Judges love this one weird trick!
So $500k for taking it,
$10k per "item"?,
$100k per day,
$200k per day if it is not returned.
Got it, I think.
It's rather hard to understand.
You mean overstand
Chalk it up to my ignorance in the field is performance contracts.
I'm not a lawyer (though I am enrolled in law school, lol) but the entire thing is obviously fraudulent and wouldn't hold up in court.
The thing he/they/crown emperor of Mars or whatever cites is Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution:
No state can ally with another country; make war; make their own money; allow private boats and vessels to catch and arrest enemy ships; or issue their own bills for credit. States must make only silver and gold to pay for things.
Like that's cool and all but he isn't a country, and one person does not a country make --
But then he cited the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Ahm, so uh -- you're claiming protection of a United States Citizen, then and recognizing the laws of the United States?" __
This guy will get the book thrown at him and they'll be laughing the whole time
Presumably they don't even need to go that far it isn't a contract. No other party has agreed to it.
I'm sure the White House paid it extra special attention.
So what exactly did they do this for?
I think this is the reason. He doesn't make a lot of sense.
"I don't have a home, but I'm not homeless!"
Seems like a typical SovCit.
Sorry but he's right on this one. A home isn't just like a house. A mobile home is still a home. If the structure keeps you safe from the elements, contains some of your possessions, and is the place where you sleep usually, then that's absolutely a home
Yet conservatives salivate at the thought of literally destroying similar domiciles that happen to form an "encampment". What's the difference? Why does this guy deserve the dignity of being allowed to own things, while people living in encampments get their shit tossed in and are forced to move location constantly?
They filled the proper paperwork, obviously
load more comments
(2 replies)
Isn't that a reason to use the more current term "unhoused?"
load more comments
(4 replies)
I have a home so you can't arrest me!
I dont have an address so you can't send me child support letters!
The sweet spot.
I hope the tow driver pays pays him with a quarter taped to a note. That's how it works, right?
"I hereby declare by my power as a sovereign entity that this quarter is worth a gajillion US dollars.
You may keep the change."
"This quarter is worth $1 million Sovcit Dollars. I expect change."
surely the tow driver would just send a 1099A with name all in capitals and the debt would be cleared?
Gotta be silver I thought.
This person has read something about unrebutted affidavits and entirely misunderstood what it means (or intentionally interpreted wrong)
They get fed this BS in social media. Since they want to believe it, it must be true. Sadly there is about a third of the Country that is really brain damaged by the lead.
I don't see where they identify the vehicle. So any vehicle that is towed falls under this "contract"? So weird
I do believe that's what he means.
I gotta know. Where the fuck did this SovCit bullshit start/come from? I'm in my 40's now, and i can say until the last 2-3 years, I hadn't heard of these mouthbreathers
It actually dates back to the 1970s, it has roots in white supremacy! The Christian Identity movement pastor William Potter Gale was the creator of the Posse Comitatus, which was a far right anti-government movement who of course believed taxes were a creation of the Jews to exert world dominance. It expanded in the 1980s with the farm crisis and began popping up in various anti-government groups, an Oklahoma City bombing perpetrator claimed to be a sovcit. Throughout the 1990s it began to attract black people from the Moorish Science Temple (which is also trippy to read about), and many of its adherents today are black. Thanks to the internet it has spread into many other countries, and thanks to movements like Qanon it has grown more.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The fuck is the 14th amendment doing in this‽
For non Americans it’s the no slavery except as punishment for crimes amendment
load more comments
(1 replies)
"sovcit" sounds like a term from judge Dredd comics, city in east block or something
Haha it does!
It's my way or the high way
Ah yes, the kind of sovereignty that doesn't have a monopoly on the state use of violence. That kind of sovereignty.
Someone hasn't read their Hinsley https://archive.org/details/sovereignty0000hins
Pencil? He upgraded from crayons because he's a big boy now
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
149 points (98.7% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2589 readers
179 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS