Maybe I’m crazy but the more of these I read the more I feel bad for these people.
It’s like the law is so alien and arbitrary to them, that even when presented with strong evidence that they’re wrong, they can’t see they’ve been deceived. They’d rather live in a world where laws can be invalidated just because they’re unfair or arcane (as long as you know the magic spell of course…).
I kind of sympathize with that: the law IS alien and often arbitrary for us common folk.
The law isn’t hard to understand it’s just hard to understand the specifics of. That’s not quite the same thing.
I do not think anyone really believes that they are allowed to drive on a suspended license, they know they’re not allowed to drive on the suspended license, but they are selfish and they do not care. They just think that there’s some weird loophole that will allow them to get away with it.
The problem is, everything they think they know about the law comes from a facebook group of crazy people.
But that’s the thing though: devil’s in the details. That’s why we hire lawyers. I mean, driving on a suspended license is illegal for everyone and it’s very obvious. Pretty much everyone gets the same ticket.
Just like stealing and embezzlement. Some guy at my work just got fired for that, and rightly so. He stole like, a hundred dollars worth of candy. They’re prosecuting him for it. Not sure why he did it, he was on camera taking an entire case, very silly stuff.
Too bad he didn’t steal 5.6 million dollars from 1,000 people. Then it would just be a civil case that takes 10+ years to litigate.
Edit: the dealers were actually seeking a combined 50 mil, and after legal fees (1.4 mil) and etc each got about 4K. Justice!
Narrator: he was, in fact, a criminal and did, in fact, make things worse for himself. He did not, however, gain any wisdom from this experience.
he acted dumb like he didn’t know what “natural man” meant.
Um…no one fucking does. You’re in a weird cult-like mind trap.
I just want to be left alone.
Bruh. No you fucking don’t. You want to use society’s infrastructure and benefits without contributing to it. If you really want to be left alone, go follow Alexander Supertramp’s lead.
Socialism
*Everyone claps
Socialism is NOT whatever the hell this “sovereign citizen” stuff is.
Socialism is instead a democratization of the benefits of our collective labor.
Rather than permit the kings and nobles, billionaires, athletes, movie stars, politicians, and pop idols to take the lion’s share - we use it to invest in our society, our collective well being.
You work? I do too. And so do the clerks at the gas stations and grocery stores - the brick layers and the office workers - we’re all just working a job for a living.
For the ones that can’t or don’t want to work - Setting aside the murky definition of “work” - I’d rather they be fed, clothes, housed and warm, because it means safer lives for everyone.
The trick is the ones who don’t want to work quickly outnumber the ones who do when you don’t need to work for a living.
Just because YOU’RE a particularly selfish jerk, doesn’t mean everyone is. Most people want to contribute and feel useful. Alot of people wouldn’t give two shits about flipping burgers if they had a reasonable work environment and could live reasonably from it.
Work is insufferable because most work environments are garbage worlds of drama and living under the guillotine of job cuts or under staffing paired with overwork. With UBI and/or better social benefits, people could breathe for two seconds and find something that fits them well or feel safe leaving a hostile workplace.
They’d still be working, but they could find the right job for them instead of being trapped - which would improve work quality for EVERYONE because a nightmare workplace would just be starved of labor instead of being able to jerk workers around cause the alternative is homelessness.
Oh, I’m so hurt by you lashing out in an ignorant personal attack because your feelings are hurt. There, there. Have a cookie and some milk. Don’t you feel better now?
Option A: Once you’re in control of yourself again, slow down and think through what you said. It’s not very logical. If most people don’t have to work to live, they won’t. And even if what you say is true “the right job for them” is going to leave a whole lot of essential jobs relatively empty. Some of those jobs are hard to fill even with financial incentive.
Option B: If you can’t control yourself, this conversation is now over.
I see you don’t have anything to add except flailing over 4 words out of 140 then doubling down on being a catty little child, and a hearty self-masturbatory “nuh uh.”
Could just admit you have no counterargument, but either way I’m not obligated to engage with disengenuous tone policing garbage. Bye Felicia.
What evidence are you basing that assertion on?
History.
Quite the powerful and convincing example you’ve cited there.
it’s not his fault you don’t know anything
Hey, I’m not responsible for your education. Your idea has been tried multiple times. I really don’t care whether you’re convinced the world is round or not.
So a special appearance is a thing. Normally, if you appear in a case, you are consenting to the courts personal and subject matter jurisdiction. But what if you believe the Court lacks jurisdiction and you want to point that out and make arguments on it instead of blowing off the court date and being defaulted? That’s a special appearance.
Nornally it’s used for personal jurisdiction issues, because subject matter jurisdiction usually isn’t in dispute. Personal jurisdiction an be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction not only cannot be waived, it can be challenged any time and the court itself has a continuing duty to make sure its subject matter jurisdiction is not lost such as by dismissals or withdrawals of certain parts of the action.
In this case though, the statute charged was a criminal statute and they were in criminal court. There very clearly is subject matter jurisdiction.
What would be an example of a special case where the court lacks personal jurisdiction?
Personal jurisdiction is when someone has enough contacts with a state to make having the lawsuit in that state fair. So you can be sued for causing a traffic accident in a state while only traveling through a state. But you shouldn’t be sued in a state that you have never visited and the conduct at the heart of the lawsuit is unrelated to your conduct in the state. Example: someone tries to sue you for defamation in Oklahoma (because that’s where they live) for a comment you posted on Lemmy. Unless you live, work, or have property in Oklahoma, it wouldn’t be fair to make you travel all the way to Oklahoma to defend a lawsuit.
Holy shit.
The legal genius has spent several weeks in jail because of traffic infringement?
What an special person they are.
“The judge seemed annoyed”. You don’t say.
