Logic of Sovs

[lurker9000]

I've been a long time lurker hence the user name. What I don't get about the sovcit idea is take the argument to conclusion. No laws apply to anyone unless you agree and you can cancel your agreement. Now say I'm a judge what's to stop me from holding you in contempt because I find your existence contemptuous and remanding you to custody until such time as you purge your contempt?

Using that same argument if someone decides to run their car through your house unless you've contracted with them not to you have no recourse. Or when they insist on filming and then complain when the authorities pull out a camera and film them.

I know their arguments are legal losers, but even if the law is too technical and complex how can a reasonably intelligent person not see that they are just stupid when taken to their conclusion. Maybe I am giving them way too much credit by assuming they are reasonably intelligent because they can copy and paste stuff off of the internet and figure out how to enter a courtroom, sometimes even under their own power and without the aid of handcuffs.

Mods please move this if I posted it in the wrong forum.

[Dr. Caligari]

I've been a long time lurker hence the user name.

Welcome aboard.

Mods please move this if I posted it in the wrong forum.

Mods: I'd suggest the Sovereign Citizens forum.

[noblepa]

Welcome.

Sovcits would recognize that driving your car through my living room would constitute a "common law offense". They usually only reject "statute law".

In reality, common law is the entire history of court rulings on a given subject. The legal concept of "stare decisis" or "look to the decision" means that, over time, the law develops some commonality. This insures that, in general, litigants get similar treatment, no matter what court they are in.

Sovcits argue that statutes can not overturn or supercede common law. In reality, just the opposite is true. Common law is just about gone in the US, because most every situation that arises has been made the subject of one or more statutes.

Sovcits don't understand common law. They seem to think that common law is whatever they think it is or want it to be.

As you were alluding to, if their version of the law were reality, the world would be in chaos (more than it already is). There would be no enforceable law at all. What they don't realize is that this means there would be no enforceable protection for them, either.

[AndyK]

The title of this thread is an oxymoron.

[lurker9000]

The title of this thread is an oxymoron.

I could add Lack of to the subject but that would reduce my trolling.

[lurker9000]

Welcome.

Sovcits would recognize that driving your car through my living room would constitute a "common law offense". They usually only reject "statute law".

Sovcits argue that statutes can not overturn or supercede common law. In reality, just the opposite is true. Common law is just about gone in the US, because most every situation that arises has been made the subject of one or more statutes.

As you were alluding to, if their version of the law were reality, the world would be in chaos (more than it already is). There would be no enforceable law at all. What they don't realize is that this means there would be no enforceable protection for them, either.

I picked a motor vehicle accident because it's probably too new to find a common law action that would work what normally is done is negligence in operating a motor vehicle which is usually a statutory cause of action.

It is funny how somebody says the law applies to me only when it works to my benefit, and really expects that to work. I didn't want to get into the idea that common law can only be used when it's not repugnant to the statutes or constitution. I wanted to point out what happens when you take their illogical argument to its conclusion.

[Tevildo]

I picked a motor vehicle accident because it's probably too new to find a common law action that would work what normally is done is negligence in operating a motor vehicle which is usually a statutory cause of action.

At common law, a motor vehicle accident would be trespass vi et armis, and negligent driving which didn't cause an accident would (probably) be a public nuisance, triable via a relator action in Chancery. The law would still be there, just much more complicated and expensive to operate. And they'd have to learn Law French, which might prove even more entertaining than their efforts in English.

EDIT: Typo

[Hyrion]

What I don't get about the sovcit idea is take the argument to conclusion. No laws apply to anyone unless you agree and you can cancel your agreement.

Sovcits would recognize that driving your car through my living room would constitute a "common law offense". They usually only reject "statute law".

My humble opinion to explain them is:

They want to be the ones to make the rules. To be able to claim your property as theirs. To present a very clear example of that they hold the contradictory position of:

• Even the Government does not have the power to force a contract on them

while

• Holding the position they can force contract terms on others against those others wills

Greed at its basest form with absolutely no desire to actually take responsibility for their own behavior.

I'm sure there are those who are actually mentally ill in one way or another. But my humble opinion is that most are simply greedy and trying to exert control over others they simply do not have in order to acquire free things they do not wish to pay for.

As a result I humbly disagree that they accept common law. While they make that claim they're just as easily able to toss common law out the window when it suits them and there's plenty of examples to that.

[lurker9000]

At common law, a motor vehicle accident would be trespass vi et armis, and negligent driving which didn't cause an accident would (probably) be a public nuisance, triable via a relator action in Chancery. The law would still be there, just much more complicated and expensive to operate. And they'd have to learn Law French, which might prove even more entertaining than their efforts in English.

EDIT: Typo

That's a good point. I never thought that they could use a common law trespass claim for my scenario.