Kikes and Muslims exempted from hat removal but judge tries to force man to remove his hat showing double standard
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okhpUZRug9o
I am not claiming a soveriegn citizen method works to win court trials because judges do ǹot use a sovereign citizen presuppositional framewprk but we live in a kike-ocracy
Judges are ASHAMED to be part of a system which declares free speech and the right to not self-incriminate, but then compels everyone to write sworn statements to the IRS (compelled potentially incriminating speech).
Because of their awkward place, they have stories they tell themselves, and occasionally a SovCit is able to insert themselves into part of their mental gymnastics, causing the judge to "freeze up" and hand them a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This of course doesn't work on DEI judges, who are too stupid to see the inconsistency, or on wantonly evil judges who simply don't care. But on the wide array of intelligent, good faith judges, these antics can potentially work. Of course the exact formula is different for every judge...
CC: @Humpleupagus curious of your thoughts on this.
@cjd @Humpleupagus @shortstories
Playing the "SovCit" game is a dangerous gamble. Your outcome will 100% depend on the judge and their mood in that moment.
"Declaring yourself a sovereign citizen or "freeman on the land" in a court case guarantees the total rejection of your arguments, leading to maximum financial penalties, loss of the case by default, and potential imprisonment for contempt of court." - https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/judicial_officers/sovereign_citizens.html
And before you say, it's different in the USA, it isn't.
Is this not a re-statement of what I said?
> SovCit antics *sometimes* work, but rarely and unreliably
@cjd @Humpleupagus @shortstories
Your "Sometimes work" argument requires the citation of at least one case, where it worked. And it's better be a serious case and not just some minor thing where the judge essentially declared the "SovCit" insane and terminated the hearing to avoid dealing with a lot of unnecessary work.
But back to the original problem: It's religios exemption. I wouldn't be surprised, if the Amish have an exemption too. Just request one, if it means so much for you.
@cjd @Humpleupagus @shortstories
Okay, I re-read your post just in case I misunderstood you. I did not.
I asked the all knowing internet of if a case like this exist. It said, there's a 0% success rate of this strategy.
I tried to look for a book. It just gave me books about changing citizenships.
So... yeah. I think I require any kind of proof, that the claimed 0% success rate is a lie. I'll literary only take one. I accept book links too, so I can check the author and the case.
I know how the US legal system works, all political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and all of the legalese mumbo-jumbi is back-filled after the fact to make it look sorta kinda legitimate.
SovCits (bless their little hearts) are trying to square the reality in front of them with the words in the Constitution.
If it's ever worked, it's because judges are suffering from the same cognitive dissonance that the SovCits are...
@cjd @Humpleupagus @shortstories Yes, I think we can leave this topic at this point. If after all of this someone still think, they have a chance with this strategy, then I wish them the best of luck. They'll will absolutely need it.
Is it your contention that every single last one of them is a filthy liar?
> Just request one, if it means so much for you.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Are you saying that I'm one of them? Did you read my original post?