333
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] darganon@lemmy.world 116 points 5 months ago

A quick Google search shows that 28 CFR 29.1 is regulations for the "Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act" which allows the attorney general to implement a program where people can put a sticker on their car which means cops can then stop and verify that they're the vehicle owners.

That doesn't mean license plates are optional. Normally I just smirk and move on feeling superior, however they rarely cite something as easy to Google as the CFR.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 69 points 5 months ago

Lol wait, so it's actually telling cops to please search this vehicle?

That's just way too funny.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In the 1980s, millions of parents took their children to be fingerprinted in the name of safety just in case they were kidnapped or something. It was very strange. I think that they were really arguing that people should do this so that their childrens' bodies could be identified.

[-] klemptor@startrek.website 19 points 5 months ago

I remember this - in grade school we had a field trip to the local jail. They showed us around (I remember being freaked out by the toilets and cameras!), told us if we didn't respect our parents and the cops that we'd end up in jail there, then fingerprinted us all. This was 1985 and I'm sure it required a permission slip but jesus what a weird thing to do to little kids.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Parents didn't even need to take the kids anywhere. They did that shit to us at school, and then put a little packet together to take home to your parents.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Driving without legal plates is essentially this, even when it doesn't cite laws.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 108 points 5 months ago

"DO NOT TOW OR MOVE" will deter exactly zero tow truck drivers.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 57 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Writing “without prejudice” next to your signature will make exactly zero difference in “your rights.”

[-] Kiernian@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

“DO NOT TOW OR MOVE” will deter exactly zero tow truck drivers.

Shoot, being legally parked with all of your vehicle plates/tags/registration/etc in order isn't enough to deter some tow truck drivers.

There's a company in my area that actively, regularly engages in predatory towing. All they have to do is claim someone called about it and be unable to produce records because of some computer issue. If they choose their targets carefully, they either get:

A: free money

B: free salvage

Even if someone DOES manage to sue and win, that's maybe 5% or less of the vehicles they tow. They seem to deem that an acceptable hit rate for free money.

Go ask anyone who tows inside the city limits of a major metropolitan area what percentage of vehicles get reclaimed after being towed.

If a company is willing to throw ethics out the window and drown the predatory tows in a flood of legitimate work, there's apparently extra money to be made.

Worst case scenario the company that practices such things fires someone for "making too many mistakes on the job" and they go get a tow job elsewhere because there's a massive shortage of tow trucks seemingly everywhere.

Much of the towing industry is a half-step above organized crime.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 72 points 5 months ago

I thought they were sovereign citizens. Why are these retards citing federal and state laws at all in the first place?

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 63 points 5 months ago

They think the law is magic, and that lawyers and the police are like the fae folk.

All of their rules are written down, and if you can just find the right magic words you can free yourself from the system. Cops can only arrest you if you consent, which requires you to say the special words that tell them you don't accept their authority: you're a sovereign citizen, not a US corporate citizen, because the police only have authority over people who agree to be bound by the rules that bind US citizens.
And the courts only have authority if you accept it, and you don't have to if you recognize that that the flag they're flying openly declares this court to be under a different jurisdiction, because only maritime flags have a fringe, and so the court isn't actually a US court but a maritime court, so you can petition for a change of jurisdiction to a different court, but you have to be careful not to accept any of their authority or accidentally bind yourself to taking responsibility for the secret shell company that the US created for you that is your name spelled in ALL CAPS, otherwise you're bound by their rules.

It's entirely bonkers, and based on layers of not understanding the law, magical thinking, conspiratorial thinking, and being taken in by a scam.

[-] BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

The all caps thing! I forgot about that. Darrell Brooks had a whole tangent on that while he was representing himself. I've watched that whole trial twice.

[-] ndru@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

If you’re really rich, a lot of this holds true. There are plenty of gaps in the laws, which those with enough wealth exploit. There are endless loopholes, ways to manipulate the truth, delay, outspend and exhaust legal proceedings.

To a law-illiterate outside observer whose main experience with the system is popular fiction and media coverage of how the law applies to the wealthy, it does look like a game where finding the right loophole will set you free.

These sadsacks are lost in the weeds. They see the injustice of the balance of power in western society, but with inflated egos and lacking any understanding of the systems of power they are under, they think they can play at the same table as the wealthy.

I almost feel sorry for them, but they generally don’t see a problem with the system oppressing other people, they just don’t want it to apply to them personally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 30 points 5 months ago

Believe it or not, that's what they usually do.

They point to specific laws, which they wildly misinterpret, and say that these laws have loopholes which allow them to opt out of regulations, or even contain flaws large enough that the entire authority of government is invalid.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 24 points 5 months ago

It's like religious people who misinterpret holy text to mean what they want it to mean by ignoring any context.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

They think that they are essentially citing ORIGINAL English Common Law that existed prior to the establishment of the US. A lot of what they argue would have made sense in the time before there was a US Constitution that changed/replaced a lot of that and then the centuries of the country progressing into the future and all the changes that entails.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wouldn't that make them British citizens then?
(I know I'm uselessly trying to bring logic into this)

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

As a French I'm sorry but they're all yours

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

As a US corporate owned entity. I have nothing against the French.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] vithigar@lemmy.ca 61 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I had to look all of these up.

18 U.S. Code 31

Definitions section for U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 2. Literally just defines terms used elsewhere. Contains no actual laws, regulations, or rights. It does not define "NOT FOR HIRE", but it does define "motor vehicle" as referencing only vehicles used for commercial purposes. They're probably trying to indicate that since they are not operating for commercial purposes then it is not a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the law, but are choosing to ignore that these definitions are for chapter 2 only.

Importantly, nothing else they cite is from Title 18, Chapter 2.

42 U.S. 1983

Provides the groundwork for taking civil action in the event that your rights are violated. Specifies that any person violating another's rights is liable for that action. Does not at any point say anything about soliciting.

28 CFR 29.1

As mentioned by @darganon@lemmy.world, provides the Attorney General with the authority to implement a theft protection program that involves vehicle owners providing consent to have their vehicles arbitrarily stopped and investigated as a potential theft.

Literally the opposite of what these people (and most others, to be fair), would want.

18 U.S. Code 654

Specifies that US federal employees are not permitted to embezzle or steal property that comes into their possession as part of their jobs.

Has nothing to do with private property, its definition, or associated rights.

18 U.S. Code 242

Fairly colourful legal language that basically means people who claim or appear to be acting in accordance with the law still aren't permitted to violate your rights. Notable for actually being about what they say it is, an assertion of their rights when dealing with law enforcement.

Also a bit about racism and unnecessary violence in the name of the law being bad. Police probably could use a refresher on this one.

UCC 1 - 308

This one is actually hilarious on the heels of calling themselves "not for hire" to skirt the definition of "motor vehicle" under 18 U.S. Code 31, since the entirety of UCC is specifically about people engaged in commercial transactions.

Adding "all rights reserved" basically means that all your rights don't need to be explicitly stated in agreements or contracts, you have them regardless. It also adds that people can come to agreements outside of the original terms of their contract or rights and this is not a violation.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

... Cool. Here's your ticket. Take it up with the judge.

SCs: ARE YOU THREATENING ME!?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] quams69@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

Lmfao codes to search these people think they're using irl cheat codes

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

If you get pulled over, just show the secret hand signal

👍👍👎👎👈👉👈👉

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

What is wrong with all these people?

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

They have been without hardship for pretty much all of their lives, and so all their thoughts are about themselves and how to exploit the world around them for their personal gain any way possible.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 26 points 5 months ago

Anytime you hear "entitlement" or "white privilege", I want you to remember this smug bitch in the picture.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 24 points 5 months ago

These morons have some of the dumbest logic I've ever seen.

Oh, sorry. Without prejudice.

[-] rezifon@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago
[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

His abrupt death felt like karmic irony for always parking in handicap spaces when he was healthy.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

Steve Jobs should NEVER be used as an example of how to human. He truly was a despicable person who happened to be very smart and have lots of visions for the future.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

All rights reserved. DO NOT TOUCH HIS COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK RIGHTS OVER THAT VEHICLE. Phew, I can relax now.

[-] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 18 points 5 months ago

I am jealous of these people. I wish I had the patience to actually read the tos of everything I use.

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

They don't even read them if they did they wouldn't be using them because the sections of law quoted don't actually mean or imply what they seem to be used for...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Sometimes one can become envious of people with little brain capacity. For them, everything is easy, because they lack the mental skills to deal with anything complicated. Happy little laughing idiots, living in their own little world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

Wait, it this a CHRISTIAN thing? I thought the sovereign citizen thing was a secular libertarian thing.

[-] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 5 months ago

I think this particular person likes to flaunt religious status. Doesn’t seem like being a sovereign citizen is a religious thing

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It has as much basis in fact as most religions do. It offers a faith-based legal defense to all those who try it, and I imagine it attracts the same sort of people who are attracted to that sort of irrational reasoning.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 months ago

There's a lot of overlap. They're not directly connected, but the types of people who are likely to write about God in all caps all over their car are also the types who might have very unorthodox opinions about how the law works.

[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

A lot of sovcits are Moorish Temple members too.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

A whole lot of whackadoo can exit in the same person and come from all sorts of sources.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

looks at picture Oh man, I remember eating a bunch of weed and getting shitface drunk for days at a time. Good times. Doesn’t really work as an identity, tho. And you really ought to stay in, y’know, if you're gonna.

[-] puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 5 months ago
[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Exactly right. I'm on a lot of their groups because it's funny.

[-] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

It figures they'd be religious.

[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Sometimes they mean Yah instead of Jesus or God.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
333 points (98.5% liked)

InsanePeopleFacebook

2132 readers
322 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 10 months ago
MODERATORS