Relevance Linguistics of Pseudolegal Reasoning to Society? (new member, apologies for noobness)

[LawofImprobability]

I am a brand new member here but have been taking a deep look at conspiracy reasoning for a while. One of the things I have noticed very strongly is that certain critical words and phrases get interpreted differently.

Specifically, "including" gets read as a term of exclusion when doing statutory construction. At least one site seems very open about it.
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Cite ... cludes.htm

I suspect that different assumption about the word doesn't raise any huge red flags because of their existing ignorance about how different parts of society interact or the idea that the collective can have rights different from individuals. Part of the way we discern the probable meaning of a phrase is by throwing out the implausible meanings and that process is fundamentally disturbed among many pseudolegal adherents. The fact-checking functions are messed up.

I went and built a short(ish) lexicon of mistaken definitions that seemed salient to pseudolegal adherents on several other words such as "equity", "corporations", and "corpus delicti" with some speculation on how such mistakes cam to be.

I realize that several other people have observed that the definitions used by pseudolegal adherents is very different from the real world BUT is that something people really analyze here? I am worried that I am re-inventing the wheel while others have developed such tools in a far better manner.

[wserra]

Sure, we talk all the time about how sovs/TPs/poots assign dumbass meanings to common words. AFAIK though, Imp (may I call you Imp?) no one has compiled a lexicon of such words.

So: welcome to Q, and have at it.

[LawofImprobability]

Sure, we talk all the time about how sovs/TPs/poots assign dumbass meanings to common words. AFAIK though, Imp (may I call you Imp?) no one has compiled a lexicon of such words.

So: welcome to Q, and have at it.

Well, thank you. I was deeply scared of having wasted my effort. I'll post one of the more finished entries every few so often in the hopes that other people get some use out of it or can add to it without getting bombarded.

Equity: The word is used in several different fields and in different ways in law. Accountants use equity to refer to an ownership interest or stake . Equity in real estate is used to refer to the value of a property minus the debt . A person whose only serious encounters with the word may assume that the financial aspect is the only meaning of the word. The other major encounter with the word would be in Art. III, section 2 of the Constitution which declares “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity”.

Reading comprehension does not seem normal among pseudolawyers. There seems to be frequent interpretations of “including” to mean “exclusively” and “all” to mean “only” . In light of the frequent use of the word “equity” in financial dealings, it seems less of a leap to assume that it pertains to contracts and their enforcement. That seems to have been the perspective in 1990 where the pseudolawyer argues that courts of equity exist to enforce contracts but not things like seatbelt laws. .

The fascination pseudolawyers have with the concepts of trusts and trustees becomes more understandable when one substitutes the real legal concept of equity as judicial discretion governed by caselaw with the financial concept of equity as capital or investment stake. One theory posits that the US became bankrupt in 1930 and was taken over by international bankers. Equity courts (in pseudolaw) would be why statutes (which are believed to be contracts) are enforced instead of “common law” . A factor that may seem to confirm those wrong beliefs in pseudolawyers’ minds is the fact that courts of equity can only compel (instead of grant title or other legal remedies) and somehow interpret that as only courts of equity can compel . I speculate that the cause is shifting the modification of the adverb (“only”) from the remedies to the court itself. English is different from many Indo-European languages in that it puts adjectives in front of the noun being modified .

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Wait until you get to the conflation of birth and berth. Much merth will ensue!

[wserra]

Not to mention "understand" and "stand under".

And yes, I'm a longtime fan of Lord Maxim of Equity.

[AndyK]

Please leave an easily followed trail as you wander down the rabbit holes of the sovereignorami and their mental relatives.

Keep reminding yourself (best to write it on the palm of your hand) if you are a person or an individual, if -- as you travel -- you are driving or operating, and if you return to a home or an abode.

Maintain a good supply of brain fuzz cleaner -- preferably of the orally administered ethanol variety.

Good luck, and may your sanity remain with you. Oops, but Groucho said "Everyone knows there's no sanity clause."

[Foggy]

I just think it's cool that a thread about linguistics has a title containing the word "noobness".

That's just linguistic as hell, IMHO.

[LawofImprobability]

Please leave an easily followed trail as you wander down the rabbit holes of the sovereignorami and their mental relatives.

Keep reminding yourself (best to write it on the palm of your hand) if you are a person or an individual, if -- as you travel -- you are driving or operating, and if you return to a home or an abode.

Maintain a good supply of brain fuzz cleaner -- preferably of the orally administered ethanol variety.

Good luck, and may your sanity remain with you. Oops, but Groucho said "Everyone knows there's no sanity clause."

I know I have to take breaks every so often to keep the rage in check. Unfortunately, the power of the illiterati cannot be underestimated and their influence pervades all of society (mainly by dragging down efficiency and making things more hazardous and expensive not to mention paranoid).

Speaking of operating...

Operate (as used with motor vehicles): Usually used as part of a larger “right to travel” argument. Pseudolegal authors try to distinguish driving from “operating” a motor vehicle as listed in various licensing statutes. The more sophisticated pseudolegal authors seem to by referring to a few cases in which a cab company was considered to be operating a vehicle even though their employee was driving it. That context matters significantly in distinguishing between a statute seeking to control the behavior of people on the roads and a commercial regulation but the pseudolegal authors seem to refuse to distinguish between meanings of the same word.

Example found in https://web.archive.org/web/20000818171 ... h-drv.text
http://barefootsworld.org/sui_juris/rig ... ravel.html

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Speaking of operating...

Yep, that's another of their specialities. Using definitions divorced from the law that defines the particular definition used purely within the law that it is defined in!

[AndyK]

Don't forget all the insanity regarding "Right to Travel"

A while ago, I came across (and unfortunately lost) a video made by a group of confrontational right-to-travel freaks.

They were in a motor home on the roads near the USA southern border happily recording their encounters with state and local police. Were they transporting fruits / vegetables? Any non-citizens on board? etc.

To cut out the babble, the officer told all of them they were free to travel on --- but the motor home had to stay. They brought their lawyer out of the rear bedrom. After a very short shat with the officer, the lawyer told them they were, as the officer said, free to travel. But the vehicle had to stay for inspection -- which could take up to 48 hours.

The video continued, but I shut it.

[MRN]

"After a very short shat with the officer"

Best typo of the week, or best typo of the month?

[HardyW]

One of the small number of flaws in the Quatloos forum is that the "Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams" board is rigidly subdivided into US, Canada, UK and [Other].

I realize that several other people have observed that the definitions used by pseudolegal adherents is very different from the real world BUT is that something people really analyze here? I am worried that I am re-inventing the wheel while others have developed such tools in a far better manner.

So just to point out there was a collaborative attempt, with a definite UK focus, at what you suggested, here:
Sovcit Glossary - translating the nonsense

[wserra]

So just to point out there was a collaborative attempt, with a definite UK focus, at what you suggested

Oops. Sorry I forgot that. I intend to keep up with the UK forum when I retire (shortly). It will take that to have the time . . .

[AnOwlCalledSage]

One of the small number of flaws in the Quatloos forum is that the "Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams" board is rigidly subdivided into US, Canada, UK and [Other].

Now I've not been around long enough to remember, but wouldn't that be because the US Sov Cits base their nonsense on a misreading of the Constitution and UCC whilst Freeman on the Land base their nonsense on Magna Carta? The stupidity is the same but the only real cross over is when they both invoke common law, so there is both commonality and a clear demarcation.

Canada is a curious melange of all of them owing to geography and history, and probably does merit its own section to avoid even more confusion. Doesn't Quebec use French heritage Civil Code of Quebec for civil matters, which makes Canada even more difficult to categorise as one or the other?

I suspect that there aren't enough visitors or knowledgeable people to justify it, but there is probably similar nonsense in civil law countries such as France that could be an interesting off shoot.

[grixit]

Wait until you get to the conflation of birth and berth. Much merth will ensue!

I'm proud to say, i predicted that.

[grixit]

One of the things that goes into sovspeak is to take a word with a lot of meanings and fixate upon just one of them, then try to apply it to every usage.

For instance, "residence" is sometimes used to mean a goverment office, though not very much anymore. One tactic against property tax is to say that the government is not allowed to tax private property so it creates a fraudulent claim to make your house public by classifying it as a "residence".

Another example is the word "label". Apparently there is an archaic usage to mean an attachment to a legal document, such as a will. At one point, instructions for the long form 1040 said to put the "label" on a particular part of the page. Said label being a sticker with the taxpayer's name, address, and so forth, that was mailed out with the form. Aha, went one detax argument, that means that a 1040 is a will, and they are telling you to make an addendum. They're tricking you into willing your money to them!

[LawofImprobability]

I'll have to check out the UK effort.

Unfortunately, while I know French and law, I know neither French law nor law French.

I have encountered some of the "admiralty" claims before. The ability to leap conclusions in a single bound. With little power comes great insanity (at least once other people spot them).

[Burnaby49]

One of the small number of flaws in the Quatloos forum is that the "Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams" board is rigidly subdivided into US, Canada, UK and [Other].

Now I've not been around long enough to remember, but wouldn't that be because the US Sov Cits base their nonsense on a misreading of the Constitution and UCC whilst Freeman on the Land base their nonsense on Magna Carta? The stupidity is the same but the only real cross over is when they both invoke common law, so there is both commonality and a clear demarcation.

Canada is a curious melange of all of them owing to geography and history, and probably does merit its own section to avoid even more confusion. Doesn't Quebec use French heritage Civil Code of Quebec for civil matters, which makes Canada even more difficult to categorise as one or the other?

I suspect that there aren't enough visitors or knowledgeable people to justify it, but there is probably similar nonsense in civil law countries such as France that could be an interesting off shoot.

It's much simpler than an analysis of the basis of the cultural differences between scams. Prior to my participation on Quatloos in 2011 there were no Canadian topics or forums, Quatloos was almost entirely American. Then I started multiple new topics, initially largely on the Paradigm tax evasion scam, and they got totally muddled with the American issues. When they reached some form of critical mass Wes decided that Canada should have its own forums for, I think, simple housekeeping purposes and so we started the Canadian forums. Then Tom Crawford started his nonsense and Quatloos was totally overwhelmed with an unprecedented tidal wave of postings from Britain. I think largely because Quatloos was essentially neutral and let anybody post without censorship unless they violated a few obvious rules. Once the Brits found Quatloos they became, by far, the dominant source of posts and needed their own forum.

Largely as I said, housekeeping. If something happens in one of my topics, say Michael Millar gets in trouble with the law again, I don't have to search through a mass of different discussions all mixed together. I just go to the Canadian tax Protester board and scroll down a far more manageable list.

[JohnPCapitalist]

One of the small number of flaws in the Quatloos forum is that the "Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams" board is rigidly subdivided into US, Canada, UK and [Other].

Now I've not been around long enough to remember, but wouldn't that be because the US Sov Cits base their nonsense on a misreading of the Constitution and UCC whilst Freeman on the Land base their nonsense on Magna Carta? The stupidity is the same but the only real cross over is when they both invoke common law, so there is both commonality and a clear demarcation.

Actually, as reported in Meads vs. Meads, it seems like a fair number of Canadian FOTL's have based their legal arguments on the US Constitution or the UCC, which is not even an actual law. Of course, since they're a) morons and b) copy-pasting without actually reading anything, one would expect a certain amount of that.

I'm appalled by how many Americans seem blissfully unaware that Canada is actually a separate country, but merely baffled by how even a small number of Canadians could apparently be so stupid.

[MRN]

Well, here is the Code Civil du Québec, (in English, pour la Français cliquetez le mot "Français" dans le menu en haut)

http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/CCQ-1991

mais malheureusement je lis et parle la Français comme une maudîte Anglo, so I'm no good as a Québécois mole.

I seem to recall that the Scott Duncan crew, which had a number of Québec sovereigns who by their syntax were clearly much more comfortable in French than in English:

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11275&hilit=surety+group

talked endlessly about "security of the person" which, oddly enough, is not from the Québec Civil code, it's from Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though originally it's from the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights, so I can't prove which he got it from.

Coffeekitten was doing a sterling job as a translator here, but they seem to have faded out after a bit.

My sense of US SovCits is that they seem more inclined to the Black Helicopters view of the UN than the "everything in a UN declaration ever is The Law" end of things, so they at least weren't working off US sources, I think. And they certainly weren't working off UK sources, because *complicated hand-waving discussion of Québec history and culture with a long digression about Rocket Richard and the Quiet Revolution redacted*