It’s a letter regarding child support payments. I guarantee that they know what the intent is.
I’ll go one further: I guarantee that child support payments contributed to their adoption of sov cit delusions, or their adoption of sov cit delusions contributed to their divorce.
Bottom one is from the US census. Which you’re required by federal law fill out (specifically written in the US Constitution). I don’t know if anyone would actually come after you for not filling it out, but I’m pretty sure writing crazy shit all over it and returning it would raise some red flags…
I only answer the how many people live here question and leave the rest blank. No one has bothered following up with me. Guess it doesn’t happen enough to make it worth enforcement.
I’ve never had anything but the short version personally. I always just filled it out cause it takes all of 5 minutes. You raise sort of a curious question though and it does appear that answering all the questions is mandatory. Apparently, at least according to the source below, they use statistical methods to fill in questions left blank. Also, again according to the source below, no one has been prosecuted since 1970 for failure to fill out a census. With that in mind they’re probably fine sending in scribblings, but they might send an agent to their door after 5 mailings to do the enumeration in person.
I was referring to the short version. I only answer how many people are living here and leave the other 10 or so blank.
If the government wants to go through the effort of court battle I obviously don’t welcome that but I acknowledge that they can. Zero interest in a fight about this. Doesn’t really matter they can get their data other ways with or without my help.
I don’t know anything about the system in the US, but I know that here in Canada they won’t take you to court instantly if you don’t fill in the census (short or long, similar to the US). Instead they’ll send you a few reminder letters first, and if that doesn’t work they’ll try to send a census working to your home to ask you the questions you missed. AFAIK, this is done to try to prevent a situation where you’re taking to court someone who perhaps can’t read (due to vision or literacy or language problems), or who has other trouble filling out the forms.
So long as you cooperate with the census worker, you won’t see the inside of a courtroom. AFAIK they only take people to court who don’t cooperate with the census taker.
Now, I’m not the greatest fans of mortgages because of what they represent, and the fact that a good chunk of a country’s economic well-being is dependant on people forking out a big proportion of their take home pay to have somewhere to live, but…
It’s frustrating to see so many people labour and stress about meeting thresholds and jumping through hoops to get a mortgage in principle, let alone find a home that they can make an accepted offer on, and these chuckle fucks make it difficult for everyone to go through the same process, much post the changes introduced in 2007 (admittedly for different but related reasons).
When I was 24 I met a guy who was enjoying wierd concepts and philosophy, as one does, as I also do. We traded some books and ideas, he was around for a few months. But he got into SovCit stuff talking with me. I thought, this guys nice, but he dont shower much, I dont know about this SovCit stuff.
A few months later the national police force showed up at my house looking for one of my guys, he wasnt there but I took the opportunity to ask the officers about this SovCit idea... they were angry at first but once I calmed them down they explained to me that SovCits are just nutters that lose in court...
And thats the story of how I learned not to go to jail by trying to make up my own rules as I go along.
My bro was into some bad stuff. Tried to right his path, but instead he got a face tattoo and stopped kickboxing with us and joined another gang. Strait to jail btw
No harm no foul, get this, the face tattoo he got was a question mark made of smaller question marks. Would have been a nice tattoo if it didnt cover 30% of his face. He wanted to speedrun unemployment/ going to jail.
He figured they had to actually serve him the papers for it to be legal.
The worst part is you try explaining that’s not how it works to someone like that, but they will still take the legal advice of a co-workers second cousin’s family friend’s nephew just because that’s what they want to hear.
One of my old housemates went to crazy lengths to avoid child support payments. Signed away parental rights, worked just enough at this cash in hand day labor place to cover rent and eat off of food stamps, kept trying unsuccessfully to get on disability under the misguided belief that would stop the government trying to collect child support. Bragged to me directly about doing all of it. Like it was some genius plan to thwart the government.
Last I heard that housemate had come out as a trans woman and was trying to move into this commune out in like Colorado or Arizona something like that.
My own dad hid his income for years working under the table and arguing to bring his child support payments down until my mom was getting like $100 a month total for me and my brother. Claimed he was living almost entirely off his new girlfriend’s income and the child support payments were too burdensome. That all came back to bite him in the ass though when he tried to apply for disability and got denied because he hadn’t banked enough work credits in the last 10 years.
Some people will do nearly anything to avoid paying child support. It’s crazy.
Debt in general really. If these people just ran around yelling, “I don’t know you! That’s my purse!”, and kept paying their debts I don’t think I’d really have much of an issue with them.
Honestly I have a lot of sympathy for sovcits in a way I never did before. It’s people trying desperately to find some sort of clause in the shitty social contract that we live in, only to find out that it’s all made up for the ruling class’ benefit, regardless. If only they could focus on collectivism instead of their hyperindividiaulism.
That’s actually not quite true. They’re largely really shitty people who don’t want to pay child support and mistreat their children and steal. A handful are stupidly desperate but they mostly just have a lack of morals.
Right? The only “secret trick” that can save people from getting into this situation is that there is power in working together and forming tenant unions. Not some funny “state national” nonsense.
Society may be unfair (rich vs poor) but they actively try and make the system them vs us. They are quite willing to try and rip people off (knowingly or delusionaly) with no care for the people who dont buy into their bullshit.
Huh? Most of them strongly attempt to take from the collective without paying in, or supporting others. Exhibit a: using public roads without wanting to pay taxes.
These people are takers and would be thrown out of any legitimate connection or union
I bet those are people voting libertarian or Republican as the “best” alternative.
These are complete shitheads, they are not trying to find social justice, they are trying to find loopholes, to get out of any responsibility.
A big problem with libertarianism is that republicans also flock to it when their own party doesn’t go “far enough” with its free market policy. The best route is to move to the left after becoming disillusioned with libertarians, but a lot of them unfortunately move towards anarcho capitalism— which is like, absolutely insane shit lol
The collectivism route sounds like a route to a cult. Either way you know its bad when people minds would literally snap and live in a dreamworld than actively do anything useful to help shift it.
I’m assuming he was using the “I wasn’t ‘operating’ that vehicle, I was traveling in it” sovcit logic to wholly commit perjury and then think they won because their worldview is then confirmed by getting to walk out?
That’s why he didn’t cross the threshold. If he did, then the judge morphs into a magistrate - which hold power over both the person AND the paper that they are attempting to charge.
What I never understand about these people is that… don’t they understand that the only thing that makes states powerful is that they use violence? You can have all the powerful incantations you have, but they have cops, armies, judges, and jails. That is what makes them sovereign.
Just ask Native Americans how much real actual treaties are worth to the US government.
I nearly went down a rabbit hole on that, like, well what is a Natural Man, or is it all caps? So glad I restrained my inborn curiosity. Ain’ got time for that. lol
distinguished from the broader category of a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization.
A natural person isn’t quite the same thing. It literally just means a human and not an organization or corporation. There are some legal differences mostly to do with culpability.
It doesn’t really come up very often.
What this lot seem to be going at is they think that their name, written as capital letters is some sort of corporation, set up against their will?, with their name and as such they are not the corporation and so cannot be charged. Which is obviously lunacy because a corporation has not been set up with their name and even if one had, they were the one doing the driving offenses, not the corporation (a corporation cannot commit driving offenses). But they’re all too thick for their own internal logic to apply.
In non-stupid crazy land if I am a truck driver and I commit a driving offense while driving for company XYZ then I committed the driving offense, not company XYZ. Unless I could prove that I had been given the instruction to drive unsafely, which of course is where all the things like tachometers come in. All this has already being decided long ago, so the stuff they are referring to doesn’t even apply.
I asked if there was a “natural man” in the court room with a claim against me?
(The “plaintiff” on my paperwork stated “The People of the State of California vs. MY ALL CAPS NAME”)
So… I think he was trying to claim that only a natural person can be a plaintiff, and because he was sued by the government - which is not a natural person - the whole thing should be invalidated.
Definitely silly, but [person X] is the plaintiff in those cases - United States is the defendant.
You’re looking for case law of the form “United States vs [person X]”, which the sovcits believe is illegal but exists because everyone else doesn’t know to question it.
insanepeoplefacebook
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.