If you say the magic words, laws don’t apply.

EDIT: I looked up two of these. Theft prevention act? It’s like they’re randomly cutting and pasting parts of laws and in their heads somehow it makes sense.

I can also randomly pick words from legal documents to say anything I want. But then, every word in this post came from a legal document including the following:

I now own your house and by having read this post you consent to a transfer of all your assets to me. No signature or confirmation required. No take backs.

This makes me think of people that add a "copyright" notice at the end of every comment

28cfr29 is about a voluntary theft prevention program. It's not about registration at all.

Facebook idiots write „without prejudice” on everything

looks inside

Prejudice

That "may" is doing some real heavy lifting...

Ah yes, let's reference all of the laws, for which you don't ascribe, to justify you not ascribing to those laws.

My favorite is the "without prejudice" part. That's the part of the spell that let's you banish a demon but don't prevent it from showing back up later.

You know, I'm really rooting for these people. They are like Mario 64 speed runners looking for the new speed butt jump glitch. One of them might actually find something worthwhile.

What's really interesting to me is how much time they invest in this stuff. It's not exactly interesting. And there's no tangible result for them, other than ending up in court. They do end up having to pay tax or whatever it is they're trying to dodge.

What do they get out of it?

These sovcits obsessed with sticking to the DMV just seem like flat earthers - there's no actual point to the obsession.

She left off her Facebook disclaimer.

The American colonies declared "All rights reserved" (independence), King George said nope and sent men with guns. The settlers won.

Let's see if this sovcit is ready to put her assertion to the test.

I'm really curious about the "without prejudice" part. I've never heard that part of their "lore" before.

Does it basically end up meaning "give me the rights of this paper/document, but I reserve the right to not meet my end of the bargain"? Because knowing them, this is exactly what it boils down to.

How much blind faith does it take for these morons to have their whole hope seated in claiming that judges dismissing them bring called a "victory"? To my knowledge none of them has ever succeeded in any way in a court setting, so they have no real examples to point to besides a judge just not seeming it worth the struggle of dealing with them.

Although at this point we should be seeking to take every one of these cases there are and summarily deciding to rule for their worst case scenario. Movement will likely die off when they spend the rest of their lives such in jail or under an impossible set of fees that they'll never even make progress on, much less finish off.

Clearly I jest, but if we could stop ducking these cases and start prosecuting them more harshly, this would naturally go away.

This one shocked me. There's actual punctuation this time. Crazy.

I hope her car gets towed.

"All Rights Reserved" being displayed is optional, but usually is done if the copyright holder suspects people may unwittingly infringe the reserved rights of their creative work. This person made their's massive for a reason, because damn that's a cool list of codes. Anyone got a torrent?