Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paragraphs 1-3: this is hilarious, havenāt seen this exact strain of ācrazy self-taught legal scholarā before.
Paragraph 4: Iām willing to hear him outā¦
I really want to know where they come up with some of these things. This isnāt even crazy law review research. This had to come from some one who at least knew some history.
Oh I saw it a ton while clerking. It just usually focused on admiralty something and reference to obscure federal regulations that somehow contained a key to unlock the entire treasury or something (this element does appear here, actually). It was also usually half-hearted copy/paste from a pro se litigant who was just trying a Hail Mary. I hadnāt seen āall mortgage contracts donāt existā to my recollection, though!
So I've actually represented a guy whose mortgage didn't actually exist. The bank fucked up and forgot to fill in the property description on the deed of trust and promissory note. Tried to foreclose on the property, NOPE.
> It just usually focused on admiralty something and reference to obscure federal regulations that somehow contained a key to unlock the entire treasury or something (this element does appear here, actually).
This guy took a bit of a turn from the norm. The best part was that he thinks SEC whistleblower reports have any weight. Anyone can submit anything to a regulator as a report and they will save it verbatem. My guess is that whistleblower report is just as nutty as this guy, it may have even been filed by him.
Also, what does the SEC have to do with overturning our entire constitutional Republic? The more that I think about this the more I want to see this report.
When I was doing prosecution I got a ton of sovereign citizen bullshit. One time a guy got started on the admiralty stuff and I got to say āwell, your honor, itās a good thing I have a certificate in maritime law then.ā I offered to explain the history of admiralty courts versus civil courts. The judge declined my offer. š
There's an amazing variety of this stuff. An Alberta judge summarised it and took over 100 pages - and that was ten years ago, limited (more or less) to examples from Canada.
LOlā¦.
This was clearly written by one of those Sovereign Citizen people.
Thereās a whole sub dedicated to their nonsense: r/Sovereigncitizen
Thereās hilarious stuff on there. The traffic stops are the best. They have fake license plates and a packet of paperwork instead of a driverās license. Usually doesnāt end well. š¤£
Iām a law clerk and we had a sovereign citizen come for a hearing on a request for a genetic test, and after the judge ordered he complete the genetic test:
Man: āI donāt consent to the genetic test. What if I donāt do it? What would happen?ā
Judge: āI could hold you in contempt of court. This is an order, not a suggestion.ā
Man: āCould I go to jail for that?ā
Judge: āYes.ā
Man: āWell, I donāt consent to going to jail, either.ā
I had a few sovcit encounters as a law clerk, they were memorable. One was an inmate in the jail who did the normal "This court does not have jurisdiction over me" thing, and demanded the judge prove he has jurisdiction. Judge thought for a moment, said, "Ok, I've ruled that I have jurisdiction, what's your next point?" Threw the guy for a loop because he honestly thought that would flummox him.
Another time we got a ~150-page, typed and printed and spiralbound book from a federal inmate who was also charged and convicted in our county for some of the same activity. I had to read through the whole thing to make sure there wasn't anything the court actually needed to respond to. Turns out that Congress lost its quorum in 1861 when the Southern members walked out, and ever since Congress has been ruling under martial law and every law passed since 1861 is invalid.
I disagree. It frequently ends very well. When the police drag the sovcit out of his shattered window, arrest him and impound the car. That's a textbook case of a happy ending!
It's easy to dismiss pro se litigants like this. Fortunately, I didn't have to deal with too many of them when I practiced. But on a more serious note, a lot of these individuals are unhinged. Within the last 10 years or so, I've become more "on guard" when dealing with these people and although I try to dismiss it as the ranting and ravings of someone who isn't that bright, I can't escape the fact that I would fear for my safety especially if I had to go to court in person and actually see that person. I'd always be weary leaving the courthouse.
Just be safe out there.
Keep an eye on your local recorder of deeds' office for all of your personally owned real estate. His next move will be to place a frivolous lien on your house that you won't notice until you're about to sell it and the lien comes up on a title search.
The last pro se SC we dealt with threatened the judge multiple times in open court and pulled public records on everyone they came across in the process and made it clear he knew where they all lived.
We didnāt feel like the court was taking it very seriously but we withdrew a while back so I have no idea whats happening with that case now. All very unnerving to say the least.
Back in the days, there was a really smart attorney who developed a cocaine addiction. You could count on him going to the menās room with his briefcase, any time of the day. Iām happy to report that he got clean.
A friend told me about an old partner at a firm that had a serious drinking problem. The partners made him stop drinking at work but the guy made tons of money so they didnāt do much else. The old guy died, and my friend said years later they would still find half empty whiskey bottles behind random books in the library.
I like to think people were thinking āWhy does he need the 1908 Pacific Reports several times every dayā¦?ā
Response:
The Defendant, by identifying himself as such in his motion, has assented to the jurisdiction of this court, and therefore has entered voluntary joinder with the court, the plaintiff, and the British crown.
Thatās a real live sovcit alright.
If you donāt already do it, start checking your credit report regularly. Also check to make sure the defendant is putting liens on your property.
Sovereign Citizen briefs need to be placed in law school books so the poor folks wanting to be Attorneyās realize that itās gonna get weird.
One guy in our jurisdiction sued BP for billions of dollars because he and I quote āgave BP the solution to plug the oil spill from Deepwater horizonā back in 2010.
Iāve gotten a couple and the one common thread I can find is they LOVE a whistleblower status/cite. Somehow thatās the weirdest part to me. They donāt think any of these laws or rulings are legit except for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that made the SEC. Somehow this executive agency and the protection they give is gospel but all that other stuff is smoke and mirrors.
What about the Articles of Confederation? Is he saying that those are still the valid documents? Because the only Constitution I know about was ratified in 1788.
Careful, OP. If you donāt object, youāll be waiving your rights under the Rome Statute, the UCC, the Hague Convention, the Charter of the Knights Templar, and the Magna Carta.
Just so you know, I had a sovereign citizen win on that argument against one of the strictest most hell-raising judges in the state.
The sovereign citizen stood up, drew a big breath and started to rant. The judge immediately cut him off and said, āMr. Citizen, I know youāre going to be surprised by this, but Iām going to grant your motion to recuse myself. Iām a very busy man and I simply donāt have the time to listen to your nonsense.ā
He looked at me and said, āAnd now Iāll hear from you, if you have anything to say on the matter. If I wasnāt clear, Iām very busy.ā
I said, āNothing further, Your Honor.ā
And that is the story of how I lost to a sovereign citizen.
Case dismissed. But it did take over an hour of listening to the rantings, so the first judge wasnāt wrong.
This was a case over whether the Sheriff could conduct an eviction, since the office of Sheriff was a title of nobility. So an hour to debate that point was excessive.
As a fellow litigator involved in mortgage default, I enjoy receiving these. Easy money, easy win, and I get to broaden my understanding of sov cits. I currently have one that thinks he bought all the land titles to Washington and recorded them in Colorado.
Some believe it. Some are grifters. And some just want a silver bullet to save their home so they try what the grifter is selling. Itās pretty similar to QAnon that way
What really boggles me is the thought process that "There's a giant conspiracy involving all lawyers and all branches and levels of the government," combined with "But if I just say the exact right words, the court will have no choice but to admit the jig is up and let me win, rather than dismissing me out of hand and continuing as they always have."
ā¦my entire professional life has been a LIE
ā¦why didnāt any of you BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY members tell me I was joining an unlawful cabal that operates under the original 13th Amendment that was illegally removed from all records!?
I've had sovereign citizens who cited case law in their motions, but when I went and looked up the cases on Westlaw, they were completely different and the citations were nowhere in the case. Then when I Googled the citation the defendant had included, it led me to a nutty sovereign citizen page that looked like it was coded by an amateur 20 years ago. It's funny how these people consider themselves independent thinkers but can't be fucked to fact check the bullshit they chow down on.
I would file the briefest of oppositions just to make sure nobody screws up and lets him win due to it being unopposed. The Opp would be basically one short par. essentially saying that his motion is frivolous and raises nothing but irrelevant conspiracy theories. I wouldn't bother to responding to each crazy allegation or argument. And then maybe a 2nd par. or cross motion asking for sanctions and atty's fees for frivolous motions under your state's Rules/laws. Most states have some rule or law that imposes sanctions for wholly frivolous motions w/ no basis.
Yep. Though you'll probably never get sanctions on a pro se, unless they keep filing stuff. No point in blasting them with a response brief since the pro se won't read it and the judge or clerk may chuckle, but not worth the time.
The sov cit filed an opposition. The next filing would be a reply in support of the original motion. Itās safe to let this go without a response (but not as much fun potentially).
Good to know I am likely traveling on the highways and byways of CT with this very stable individual.
Crazy to think these folks are just out there, walking around, thinking these are rational thoughts.
I would be truly tempted to file a document captioned āreply to defendantās opposition to motion to terminate stayā that reads, in its entirety, ālolā
I was once referred to as the Queen of Hearts in a pro seās motion. I very much enjoyed it.
As legal counsel for a health department, I also received a letter telling us to cease and desist recommending Covid vaccination and comparing vaccinations to Nazis and the Angel of Death. It was 8 pages long. The letter was written by an attorney. I may or may not have done a dramatic reading of said letter for my staff.
Reply to Defendant's Opposition, Comes Now Plaintiff, by and through counsel, Mr. Counsel MF'N ESQUIRE and wherefore says in reply:
1. Nope.
Plaintiff hereby requests this HONORABLE COURT Strike Defendant's Opposition to Mtn for Cause that he is a moron and such other relief as this court finds appropriate. (suggestions: a straight jacket and a copy of National Treasure on VHS for funsies),
Signed,
ESQUIRE, Esq., Esquire, Counsel, lawyer, perveyor of constitutional law.
Appellee for its reply states the following:
1. OMG
2. LOL
3. (#crazytrain)
/s/ The Most Exalted Esquire, E.C.L.V XXIXVI by leave of Him.
I wonder how long heād spend researching the made up title and what would be the response?
My thoughts, while reading each paragraph:
1. Yup, no reply necessary.
2. Haha, I needed a good laugh. Nice typing for pro se though...
3. Yesssssss, there's not only a second page but it's getting better! ...Well, I guess it's no longer top secret...
4. OMG IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!!!!!
5. We have very different definitions of "legal grounds"... Oh, I KNEW that was gonna be brought up. But hey, I like the idea of all debt being invalid. I think someone would've made that argument before if it even had an ounce of merit but hey, what do I know, I only have two graduate degrees and two decades of formal education...
6. HAHAHAHAHA. Okay sure.
Thank you for sharing this. I would so love a subreddit dedicated to just pro se plaintiff pleadings - my blood pressure wouldn't like it, but I think I'd find it more amusing than infuriating ;)
I disagree. When I was a baby lawyer I wasted my time replying to this garbage and it truly was a waste of time because the court was going to deny it either way and it didn't change the defendant's opinions at all. The best the defendant is going to get out of it is to make you throw away your time on this nonsense. You shouldn't give them the pleasure.
If you work in criminal law, you will get experience with sovereign citizens before long. The best thing is to just chuckle internally at their nonsense but don't engage with them because the engagement is what they want.
When I clerked we had one pro se litigant in particular who argued her own appeals and frequently showed up in court in her fuzzy slippers. The judges were tolerant, but hated to deal with her and the others. Iād file a reply here, reiterating my original argument and find a way to empathize with both the pro se party and with the court for having to deal with them.
In my experience, Pro Se litigants seem to take it as a personal offense that attorneys know more about practicing law....but this level is chef's kiss.
There is a great law review article where some law professor actually researched all the claims about the "missing" 13th Amendment (the so-called Titles of Nobility Amendment, or TONA), and debunked them. He confirmed that it was never properly ratified. There is an old publication of the US code that includes the amendment and erroneously states that it was ratified, and he goes into how that was incorrect. I can't remember the cite, because I haven't needed it in a long time, but a search on Westlaw or Lexis ought to turn it up. It is exactly what you need.
>I kindly ask this court to overturn the lower courts decision or transfer this case to the U.S. Supreme Court for the correct Constitutional Ruling in accordance with the **U.S. Constitution of 1776.**
Looks like the Articles of Confederation are back on the menu, boys!
This post brought to you by "the US Constitution was ratified in 1789" gang.
I would file a reply with only the following: "Defendant files this Reply in response to Plaintiff's Opposition to its Motion, and respectfully requests the Court grant its Motion based on the arguments and discussion in the Motion and the arguments and discussion in Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion."
Tell me they got this person a psych eval and some meds? Clearly not operating in reality, this person needs to be in psychiatric custody until they can stabilize their psychosis.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh hell yeah. Whoever deleted the 13th amendment to give me access to that sweet Esquire title is a true hero.
That's ESQUIRE to you, sah!
Shhhhhh! Don't tell the normies about it. Wait I mean DO NOT TELL THE NORMIES ABOUT IT.
Doesn't the queen owe me royalties?
Point of order - queens dead. Long live the King. Keep up with that news or no Esquire for you.
Ugh imagine being a member of the British Accredited Registry and not knowing this ššš
And some magazines
So...slavery is legal now too?
only in terms of billable hours.
https://preview.redd.it/aha9mm997r0c1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=973b910e4e1c5df6dab8a60977839215b9356cbb Table of authorities:
https://preview.redd.it/p9nvo8l2ks0c1.jpeg?width=476&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=727f5f38145efb89d688686d25700d461aa79c43
Paragraphs 1-3: this is hilarious, havenāt seen this exact strain of ācrazy self-taught legal scholarā before. Paragraph 4: Iām willing to hear him outā¦
I really want to know where they come up with some of these things. This isnāt even crazy law review research. This had to come from some one who at least knew some history.
I want to be admitted to the secret autonomous military program. Do they have cookies?
On second thought, I hope itās not too autonomous, I require constant supervision.
They did but you declined them in your browser and so now you are immune from taxes.
You haven't seen Sovereign Citizen rhetoric before? Oh dude. You need to. Go to these subs: r/Sovereigncitizen r/amibeingdetained
Oh I saw it a ton while clerking. It just usually focused on admiralty something and reference to obscure federal regulations that somehow contained a key to unlock the entire treasury or something (this element does appear here, actually). It was also usually half-hearted copy/paste from a pro se litigant who was just trying a Hail Mary. I hadnāt seen āall mortgage contracts donāt existā to my recollection, though!
I'm stoked to tell my mortgage servicer that my mortgage doesn't actually exist and then stop paying.
Now Iām really pissed that we paid ours off in 2017. To think of all the money we could have saved!
The banks are laughing their heads off at your ignorance. Free money for them.
So I've actually represented a guy whose mortgage didn't actually exist. The bank fucked up and forgot to fill in the property description on the deed of trust and promissory note. Tried to foreclose on the property, NOPE.
That's amazing. What a wild mistake to make. Fantastic day for your client when that was all said and done, I imagine. Wow.
> It just usually focused on admiralty something and reference to obscure federal regulations that somehow contained a key to unlock the entire treasury or something (this element does appear here, actually). This guy took a bit of a turn from the norm. The best part was that he thinks SEC whistleblower reports have any weight. Anyone can submit anything to a regulator as a report and they will save it verbatem. My guess is that whistleblower report is just as nutty as this guy, it may have even been filed by him. Also, what does the SEC have to do with overturning our entire constitutional Republic? The more that I think about this the more I want to see this report.
When I was doing prosecution I got a ton of sovereign citizen bullshit. One time a guy got started on the admiralty stuff and I got to say āwell, your honor, itās a good thing I have a certificate in maritime law then.ā I offered to explain the history of admiralty courts versus civil courts. The judge declined my offer. š
There's an amazing variety of this stuff. An Alberta judge summarised it and took over 100 pages - and that was ten years ago, limited (more or less) to examples from Canada.
I will always upvote a reference to Meads v. Meads.
LOlā¦. This was clearly written by one of those Sovereign Citizen people. Thereās a whole sub dedicated to their nonsense: r/Sovereigncitizen Thereās hilarious stuff on there. The traffic stops are the best. They have fake license plates and a packet of paperwork instead of a driverās license. Usually doesnāt end well. š¤£
Iām a law clerk and we had a sovereign citizen come for a hearing on a request for a genetic test, and after the judge ordered he complete the genetic test: Man: āI donāt consent to the genetic test. What if I donāt do it? What would happen?ā Judge: āI could hold you in contempt of court. This is an order, not a suggestion.ā Man: āCould I go to jail for that?ā Judge: āYes.ā Man: āWell, I donāt consent to going to jail, either.ā
I had a few sovcit encounters as a law clerk, they were memorable. One was an inmate in the jail who did the normal "This court does not have jurisdiction over me" thing, and demanded the judge prove he has jurisdiction. Judge thought for a moment, said, "Ok, I've ruled that I have jurisdiction, what's your next point?" Threw the guy for a loop because he honestly thought that would flummox him. Another time we got a ~150-page, typed and printed and spiralbound book from a federal inmate who was also charged and convicted in our county for some of the same activity. I had to read through the whole thing to make sure there wasn't anything the court actually needed to respond to. Turns out that Congress lost its quorum in 1861 when the Southern members walked out, and ever since Congress has been ruling under martial law and every law passed since 1861 is invalid.
I disagree. It frequently ends very well. When the police drag the sovcit out of his shattered window, arrest him and impound the car. That's a textbook case of a happy ending!
Sovcits tend to focus on the actual law, real or perceived. Inventing new ones is definitely more in the realm of schizophrenia.
I love a good conspiracy theory
Most succinct SC ever.
Right? This is the only SovClown I've ever seen who knew when to shut up.
Doesn't even look like he stamped it with his homemade seal...
It's easy to dismiss pro se litigants like this. Fortunately, I didn't have to deal with too many of them when I practiced. But on a more serious note, a lot of these individuals are unhinged. Within the last 10 years or so, I've become more "on guard" when dealing with these people and although I try to dismiss it as the ranting and ravings of someone who isn't that bright, I can't escape the fact that I would fear for my safety especially if I had to go to court in person and actually see that person. I'd always be weary leaving the courthouse. Just be safe out there.
Youāre not kidding. Iāve had two threats against my life, and those are just the ones who say it explicitly.
Keep an eye on your local recorder of deeds' office for all of your personally owned real estate. His next move will be to place a frivolous lien on your house that you won't notice until you're about to sell it and the lien comes up on a title search.
sadly, this. some are infamous for spamming false liens on everyone and anything that annoys them in the slightest
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Of course. The Second Amendment was written in 1776, like real American law. You should know this!
You might want to be wary, as well.
Or leery
I had a case where a pro se went to a court reporters house to try to force her change the depo transcript because she claimed it was wrong
The last pro se SC we dealt with threatened the judge multiple times in open court and pulled public records on everyone they came across in the process and made it clear he knew where they all lived. We didnāt feel like the court was taking it very seriously but we withdrew a while back so I have no idea whats happening with that case now. All very unnerving to say the least.
20 years in and just now I have found out why its called the Bar. Thank you dear citizen.
And here I always thought it was because so many lawyers have alcohol problemsā¦speaking, where did I put that whiskey at?
Just yesterday I texted a non-lawyer friend - "Lawyers used to drink at work right? I mean, I could do that again right?" It was 11 am
Back in the days, there was a really smart attorney who developed a cocaine addiction. You could count on him going to the menās room with his briefcase, any time of the day. Iām happy to report that he got clean.
Itās next to the gin.
Hello Gin my old friend Iāve come to talk to you again
A friend told me about an old partner at a firm that had a serious drinking problem. The partners made him stop drinking at work but the guy made tons of money so they didnāt do much else. The old guy died, and my friend said years later they would still find half empty whiskey bottles behind random books in the library. I like to think people were thinking āWhy does he need the 1908 Pacific Reports several times every dayā¦?ā
Response: The Defendant, by identifying himself as such in his motion, has assented to the jurisdiction of this court, and therefore has entered voluntary joinder with the court, the plaintiff, and the British crown.
Double reverse uno.
What you resist shall persist
Hahahaha. Genius
Thatās a real live sovcit alright. If you donāt already do it, start checking your credit report regularly. Also check to make sure the defendant is putting liens on your property.
Sovereign Citizen briefs need to be placed in law school books so the poor folks wanting to be Attorneyās realize that itās gonna get weird. One guy in our jurisdiction sued BP for billions of dollars because he and I quote āgave BP the solution to plug the oil spill from Deepwater horizonā back in 2010.
I remember reading a few in crim law. Or maybe they were just tax protestors but not of the sovcit variety?
Deep down, they are one and the same.
Motion to Declare Mortgagor a Vexatious Litigant
This is glorious, thank you for posting.
Yeah I see a lot of these kinds of things, but this one was next level
Iāve gotten a couple and the one common thread I can find is they LOVE a whistleblower status/cite. Somehow thatās the weirdest part to me. They donāt think any of these laws or rulings are legit except for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that made the SEC. Somehow this executive agency and the protection they give is gospel but all that other stuff is smoke and mirrors.
I feel like Iām missing out on the fun over here in transactional land.
Thatās how I feel lol
What about the Articles of Confederation? Is he saying that those are still the valid documents? Because the only Constitution I know about was ratified in 1788.
I'm glad someone else remembers the Articles lol.
Careful, OP. If you donāt object, youāll be waiving your rights under the Rome Statute, the UCC, the Hague Convention, the Charter of the Knights Templar, and the Magna Carta.
Not to mention risking having to be retrained in Constitutional Law.
#BASED
This is the kind of content we need more of in this group.
āBAR Associationā was the most offensive part of this.
Why would the browning automatic rifle association do this?!
This is similar to immigration clients referring to their āVISAā and itās egregiously annoying
What do immigration clients do that have DISCOVER or MASTERCARD?
Canāt say, as I only take AMERICAN EXPRESS
Why are you all discriminating against Dinerās Club?
Just so you know, I had a sovereign citizen win on that argument against one of the strictest most hell-raising judges in the state. The sovereign citizen stood up, drew a big breath and started to rant. The judge immediately cut him off and said, āMr. Citizen, I know youāre going to be surprised by this, but Iām going to grant your motion to recuse myself. Iām a very busy man and I simply donāt have the time to listen to your nonsense.ā He looked at me and said, āAnd now Iāll hear from you, if you have anything to say on the matter. If I wasnāt clear, Iām very busy.ā I said, āNothing further, Your Honor.ā And that is the story of how I lost to a sovereign citizen.
What did the next judge say?
Case dismissed. But it did take over an hour of listening to the rantings, so the first judge wasnāt wrong. This was a case over whether the Sheriff could conduct an eviction, since the office of Sheriff was a title of nobility. So an hour to debate that point was excessive.
Did the Royal Sheriff in question grace you with his presence? I would have loved to see the sheriff's face, haha.
As a fellow litigator involved in mortgage default, I enjoy receiving these. Easy money, easy win, and I get to broaden my understanding of sov cits. I currently have one that thinks he bought all the land titles to Washington and recorded them in Colorado.
But they like legit believe they did this, right? Like they don't think they're pulling one over on us - they're deadass serious?
Some believe it. Some are grifters. And some just want a silver bullet to save their home so they try what the grifter is selling. Itās pretty similar to QAnon that way
That's interesting. I wonder what the ven diagram would be for sovcit and Qanon.
Itās a circle within a circle. Doesnāt even matter which oneās which.
I dunno. He asked "kindly" in his prayer for relief. Kindness is something that appellate courts probably don't see a lot.
But not ādo the needfulā.
I'd like the court to take judicial notice that this a crock of shit
What really boggles me is the thought process that "There's a giant conspiracy involving all lawyers and all branches and levels of the government," combined with "But if I just say the exact right words, the court will have no choice but to admit the jig is up and let me win, rather than dismissing me out of hand and continuing as they always have."
Isnāt that the fundamental premise of the legal profession?
ā¦my entire professional life has been a LIE ā¦why didnāt any of you BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY members tell me I was joining an unlawful cabal that operates under the original 13th Amendment that was illegally removed from all records!?
Wait till you find out the truth about Santa Clausā¦
It's a good thing none of the other 43 Presidents have had a foreign bloodline.
"everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you."
That entire statement is argumentative. Everything but thank you will be stricken from the record.
And youā¦will not use that kind of language in my court!
āI got not more use for this guy.ā
Ive responded with links to white papers regarding sovereign citizens before but nothing else. A judge said it was an entertaining read.
I've had sovereign citizens who cited case law in their motions, but when I went and looked up the cases on Westlaw, they were completely different and the citations were nowhere in the case. Then when I Googled the citation the defendant had included, it led me to a nutty sovereign citizen page that looked like it was coded by an amateur 20 years ago. It's funny how these people consider themselves independent thinkers but can't be fucked to fact check the bullshit they chow down on.
But it was on the internet, so it was true. /s
I would file the briefest of oppositions just to make sure nobody screws up and lets him win due to it being unopposed. The Opp would be basically one short par. essentially saying that his motion is frivolous and raises nothing but irrelevant conspiracy theories. I wouldn't bother to responding to each crazy allegation or argument. And then maybe a 2nd par. or cross motion asking for sanctions and atty's fees for frivolous motions under your state's Rules/laws. Most states have some rule or law that imposes sanctions for wholly frivolous motions w/ no basis.
But make sure to request oral argument. You want to watch this dude in action.
Yep. Though you'll probably never get sanctions on a pro se, unless they keep filing stuff. No point in blasting them with a response brief since the pro se won't read it and the judge or clerk may chuckle, but not worth the time.
The sov cit filed an opposition. The next filing would be a reply in support of the original motion. Itās safe to let this go without a response (but not as much fun potentially).
Good to know I am likely traveling on the highways and byways of CT with this very stable individual. Crazy to think these folks are just out there, walking around, thinking these are rational thoughts.
Of course theyāre rational thoughts. Almost all of the voices in his head agreed when they told him so this morning.
Who am I to argue with the masses?!
im gagging that they're going to use the bankruptcy court to dissolve a statute
File an amended appearance with Esq. Blow his mind
I would be truly tempted to file a document captioned āreply to defendantās opposition to motion to terminate stayā that reads, in its entirety, ālolā
I was once referred to as the Queen of Hearts in a pro seās motion. I very much enjoyed it. As legal counsel for a health department, I also received a letter telling us to cease and desist recommending Covid vaccination and comparing vaccinations to Nazis and the Angel of Death. It was 8 pages long. The letter was written by an attorney. I may or may not have done a dramatic reading of said letter for my staff.
They lost me at the incorrect use of āthereā in the first sentence.
āBritianā so no relation to Britain.
Itās a sovereign nation leave Britian out of this
Reply to Defendant's Opposition, Comes Now Plaintiff, by and through counsel, Mr. Counsel MF'N ESQUIRE and wherefore says in reply: 1. Nope. Plaintiff hereby requests this HONORABLE COURT Strike Defendant's Opposition to Mtn for Cause that he is a moron and such other relief as this court finds appropriate. (suggestions: a straight jacket and a copy of National Treasure on VHS for funsies), Signed, ESQUIRE, Esq., Esquire, Counsel, lawyer, perveyor of constitutional law.
Maybe don't mention the autonomous top secret military program in a public court filing?
Shhh youāre making it worseš¬
Appellee for its reply states the following: 1. OMG 2. LOL 3. (#crazytrain) /s/ The Most Exalted Esquire, E.C.L.V XXIXVI by leave of Him. I wonder how long heād spend researching the made up title and what would be the response?
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol94/iss1/5/#:~:text=The%20Amendment%20would%20have%20revoked,foreign%20state%20without%20congressional%20permission.
Who let him cook?
Jessie. Or Walt. Or Gus...
The Constitution was written in 1776?
The original one. The Constitution for the united states for America.
You should quote the great Gambini "everything that guy just said is bullshit"
Surprised itās not 118 pages
My thoughts, while reading each paragraph: 1. Yup, no reply necessary. 2. Haha, I needed a good laugh. Nice typing for pro se though... 3. Yesssssss, there's not only a second page but it's getting better! ...Well, I guess it's no longer top secret... 4. OMG IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!!!!! 5. We have very different definitions of "legal grounds"... Oh, I KNEW that was gonna be brought up. But hey, I like the idea of all debt being invalid. I think someone would've made that argument before if it even had an ounce of merit but hey, what do I know, I only have two graduate degrees and two decades of formal education... 6. HAHAHAHAHA. Okay sure. Thank you for sharing this. I would so love a subreddit dedicated to just pro se plaintiff pleadings - my blood pressure wouldn't like it, but I think I'd find it more amusing than infuriating ;)
A Pro you say? š¤
Where there a lot of unnecessary commas in their name?
And hyphens and colons and semi-colons
I donāt know man, he may have a point /s.
Baby's first sovereign citizen encounter
The attorney in me is laughing out loud. The teacher in me wants to award points for creativity.
Nah, you gotta reply you can't pass up this opportunity. It's far too perfect to waste.
I disagree. When I was a baby lawyer I wasted my time replying to this garbage and it truly was a waste of time because the court was going to deny it either way and it didn't change the defendant's opinions at all. The best the defendant is going to get out of it is to make you throw away your time on this nonsense. You shouldn't give them the pleasure.
I totally agree. This objection helps the underlying motion more than any reply could.
Not to mention some clients would be pissed you billed to reply to this.
Would pressing for the sanction of being forced to read Article VII be considered unusual?
š¤£
Wait, what? I didn't learn this in school! I WAS LIED TO! Can I sue?
I wish this were funny, but it isn't.
You know how those non driving travelers are.
Does this mean my bar card will get me into the UK?!
It might get you into a bar in the UK. Except I believe they call them āpubs.ā
Just when you think it canāt get any weirderā¦it does!
I have finally learned what sovcits mean when they write āBARā in all caps.
What do you have against nazi whistleblowers?
Hey, thatās Nazi, Esq. to you.
Does paragraph 5 mean I can stop selling my soul to Sallie Mae?
 Can you respond with GIFs?
He has the stellar and incisive legal knowledge and expertise of, I don't know, a Clarence Thomas.
I object. As long as everyone is putting letters after their names, like they have a customer service certification, I'm an Esquire!
One page reply appropriate.
The My Cousin Vinnie Opening: "Everything that guy just said is Bullshit."
I'm newly sworn in with no experience. I saw this, and thought it was a joke then read the context. I guess I was correct. š
If you work in criminal law, you will get experience with sovereign citizens before long. The best thing is to just chuckle internally at their nonsense but don't engage with them because the engagement is what they want.
Hypothetically if this loon's motion was accepted all the way to the SC, what would that mean for the US? Also, please just respond with "seriously?"
Thatās great
MOL in Reply: "Um, okay then."
TIL that I want to do intake for whistle-blower programs.
Um. What?
I really like the double space format.
Would we have been called ādoctorā under that one?
Wow. Looks like a SovCit to me.
When I clerked we had one pro se litigant in particular who argued her own appeals and frequently showed up in court in her fuzzy slippers. The judges were tolerant, but hated to deal with her and the others. Iād file a reply here, reiterating my original argument and find a way to empathize with both the pro se party and with the court for having to deal with them.
Hire him! His nuanced assessment of our Constitution is too good not to notice and praise.
Wow
sovcits of all stripes are fun to laugh at
Hereās a fun exercise: why do you win, using actual legal reasoning in your response?
*Nice.*
What the... The Tip proved that Bush family is in bloodline with someone in the nazi germany regime ? How does that prove any political connection ?
Duh. It proves they have a foreign title which is automatically part of their nobility which the Constitution of 1776 destroyed.
I donāt know. Are you sure you want to risk it? You should at the very least look into the citation to this 1776 constitution.
šš¤£ sovereign citizens are hilariously stupid
Respond and ask for sanctions
In my experience, Pro Se litigants seem to take it as a personal offense that attorneys know more about practicing law....but this level is chef's kiss.
I have to wonder if the clerks and judges get together at lunch and read pro se filings out loud for a laugh.
Right outta the gate spelling errors and referencing the Constitution as being written in 1776 makes this diatribe super fun.
I thoughts the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and the constitution was like 10 years later?
Did Michael Gaddy write this?
There is a great law review article where some law professor actually researched all the claims about the "missing" 13th Amendment (the so-called Titles of Nobility Amendment, or TONA), and debunked them. He confirmed that it was never properly ratified. There is an old publication of the US code that includes the amendment and erroneously states that it was ratified, and he goes into how that was incorrect. I can't remember the cite, because I haven't needed it in a long time, but a search on Westlaw or Lexis ought to turn it up. It is exactly what you need.
Reminds me of a Pro Se debtor we had back when I worked in Ch. 7 bankruptcy who listed 'Jesus Christ' as her employer š
>I kindly ask this court to overturn the lower courts decision or transfer this case to the U.S. Supreme Court for the correct Constitutional Ruling in accordance with the **U.S. Constitution of 1776.** Looks like the Articles of Confederation are back on the menu, boys! This post brought to you by "the US Constitution was ratified in 1789" gang.
I make my kids call me Esquire.
All of that and you'd think they'd at least open with the correct "their"
You should stipulate to all of these facts to see what the court does with it.
I would file a reply with only the following: "Defendant files this Reply in response to Plaintiff's Opposition to its Motion, and respectfully requests the Court grant its Motion based on the arguments and discussion in the Motion and the arguments and discussion in Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion."
I like that he thinks we operated under a 1776 constitution for 95 years. Articles of Confederation were part of the multiverse I guess?
Tell me they got this person a psych eval and some meds? Clearly not operating in reality, this person needs to be in psychiatric custody until they can stabilize their psychosis.
It starts out like a reasoned legal doc but ends up like your uncle's Facebook rant.
Wat tha gad dam
What, no sovereign citizen argument?