Sovcit Glossary - translating the nonsense

[fortinbras]

A slightly more serious translation:

Truthers: (Originally) People who rejected the official accounts of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (this broke up into factions who each had their own explanation); since then it seems to apply to any crowd that refuses to believe the most conspicuous facts of any newsworthy event (such as the Boston Marathon bombing, the shootings at Sandy Hook School, etc.).

Birthers: People who refused to believe that Barack Obama was a natural born US citizen. They quibbled about the Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the internet (blissfully unaware that Hawaii printed it on green anti-counterfeiting security paper - in keeping with a 2004 federal law - that caused Photoshop and other software to give anomalous readings), and touted a dozen different 'real' African certificates which each had obvious defects. There were also members who conceded that Obama was born in the US but had their own (already rejected) notions of the legal requirements for citizenship. You'd have thought the lid would have slammed shut on this movement as of January 20th 2017, but you'd be wrong.

False Flag: The accusation that the officially identified culprit in a newsworthy crime is entirely innocent and that some other party, usually a domestic or foreign government agency, is the real villain. Examples included the claims that Osama Bin-Laden was not responsible for the attacks on 9-11 and the real villains were (1) the Bush Administration, or (2) Jews inside the Bush Administration, or (3) the Israeli Government, or (4) a combination of the previous. Similarly, with the Boston Marathon Bombing, the accusation is that there was no real bombing - the apparent victims, even the ones with hideous wounds, are mere actors with impressive makeup and prosthetics, and the US government staged this to blame Arab terrorists and try to justify some new policy ... that never materialized.

A4V: Sovtard abbreviation for "Accept For Value". Sovtards write this on any document they don't like - court papers, tax papers, traffic tickets, etc. - and send it back and somehow think this nullifies the effect of the document or even nullifies the entire process in which the document was involved - or even turns the document into money for them. They are wrong on all counts. This expression is from the Uniform Commercial Code and it is used when, for example, a buyer (say, a retailer) receives a shipment that's less than he expected. Rather than return the shipment and have nothing of it, he would "accept for value" the inadequate shipment - meaning he would pay only proportional to the full price of the full shipment, and also indicate that he perhaps wanted the rest of the shipment. Clearly this doesn't mean anything when scrawled on official papers.

UCC: Uniform Commercial Code - NOT as one Sovtard website has it "Universal Commercial Code". This is a carefully worked up body of law to govern primarily the sale of movable goods, first published in the 1950s by the Commissioners of Uniform State Laws with the help of professors, lawyers, and judges all around the country. Since then it has occasionally been revised in spots, mostly to accommodate new technology such as internet transactions. It has been adopted in all 50 States and DC. It is NOT federal law. It is not the law in Canada. It does not apply to the sale of real estate. It does not, I cannot emphasize this too much, apply to criminal law, nor to traffic law, nor to tax law, nor to judicial procedure.

Duress: Supposedly the excuse by which a Sovtard can ignore court dates after signing the receipt on traffic tickets, court appearance tickets, and similar documents, or by which he can ignore and violate other official document after signing some sort of pledge of compliance. In law, the excuse of duress requires that "duress" be the credible threat of immediate death or severe bodily harm. Mere inconveniences or the operation of the law, such as an arrest by police, do not qualify as "duress". Reining v. US (5th Cir. 1948) 167 F.2d 362 at 365 cert.den. 335 US 830.

Common law: In the real world, this term has a number of different and conflicting meanings. It could mean the law that currently applies everywhere (such as as the Uniform Commercial Code), or it could mean the English laws that were in effect in North America just prior to Independence, or historically it meant English law that was in effect before the creation of Parliament (13th century) and the passage of regular legislation. Whatever it might mean to a lawyer or a historian, to a Sovtard it means nonsense. When showing up in court, Sovtards will announce they are there "in common law jurisdiction" - the way casual poker players might blurt out "Jacks are wild" or some other variant of play; the Sovtards evidently think that saying this somehow causes the gears of the court to shift. But it doesn't work that way. Traffic court, criminal court, tax court are all operating under statutory jurisdiction, enforcing and interpreting statutory law. If asked to explain their concept of "common law", Sovtards cannot point to any legal reference, even to the ones used to research medieval law, but come up with a hodge-podge of comic book notions pulled out of their lower torso.

[aesmith]

Common law: In the real world, this term has a number of different and conflicting meanings. It could mean the law that currently applies everywhere (such as as the Uniform Commercial Code), or it could mean the English laws that were in effect in North America just prior to Independence, or historically it meant English law that was in effect before the creation of Parliament (13th century) and the passage of regular legislation. Whatever it might mean to a lawyer or a historian, to a Sovtard it means nonsense. When showing up in court, Sovtards will announce they are there "in common law jurisdiction" - the way casual poker players might blurt out "Jacks are wild" or some other variant of play; the Sovtards evidently think that saying this somehow causes the gears of the court to shift. But it doesn't work that way. Traffic court, criminal court, tax court are all operating under statutory jurisdiction, enforcing and interpreting statutory law. If asked to explain their concept of "common law", Sovtards cannot point to any legal reference, even to the ones used to research medieval law, but come up with a hodge-podge of comic book notions pulled out of their lower torso.

Taking purely a UK perspective I would revise that point a little. The court, whether Magistrates, Sheriff, Justice of the Peace, County etc etc will apply the applicable law to the matter in hand, whether that's Common Law or Statutory Law. For example a Crown Court might hear a murder case which is defined by common law, or rape which is statutory.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I have little idea what they actually mean by 'secured creditor' which many of them aspire to. And more to the point, why they want it when in a normal legal sense they have no secured interest in anything.

Good non-frivolous definitions, by the way.

[noblepa]

I have little idea what they actually mean by 'secured creditor' which many of them aspire to. And more to the point, why they want it when in a normal legal sense they have no secured interest in anything.

Good non-frivolous definitions, by the way.

On the western side of the pond, at least, I think it usually means a creditor who has accepted a pledge of a specific asset as collateral for a loan. For example, my house is collateral for my mortgage. Therefore the lender is a secured creditor. He gets second dibs on the house (the tax man gets the first), in the event that I default on my loan.

Another example is a car loan. Usually, the car is collateral for the loan, making the bank or finance company a secured lender. Their interest is secured by the collateral.

How this applies to a FMOTL, I haven't a clue. First of all, a creditor is one who is owed money. Most FMOTL are debtors, not creditors.

[The Seventh String]

UCC: Uniform Commercial Code - NOT as one Sovtard website has it "Universal Commercial Code". This is a carefully worked up body of law to govern primarily the sale of movable goods, first published in the 1950s by the Commissioners of Uniform State Laws with the help of professors, lawyers, and judges all around the country. Since then it has occasionally been revised in spots, mostly to accommodate new technology such as internet transactions. It has been adopted in all 50 States and DC. It is NOT federal law. It is not the law in Canada. It does not apply to the sale of real estate. It does not, I cannot emphasize this too much, apply to criminal law, nor to traffic law, nor to tax law, nor to judicial procedure.

Far from being “universal” the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States only applies in the United States. Nowhere else. Not even to the countries next door to the USA, Canada and Mexico. It absolutely does not apply in the United Kingdom no matter how many times Freemen claim it does or attempt to use it in court to support their “case”.

Despite some loopier Freeman claims it has no effect at all anywhere on planets other than the Earth.

[The Seventh String]

First Amendment RIghts In Freeman/Sovcit/conspiracty theorist/troll-speak the claim that anyone who disagrees with them is in some way attempting to silence them by force and denying them their legal right to “freedom of speach” (sic).

In reality, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall not pass laws limiting freedom of speech.

The Amendment only has any power at all within the United States and is irrelevant anywhere else. It only affects Congress and laws passed by Congress. Private companies or anyone else not the US Congress, such as Facebook, Twitter, this forum etc. are free, within the limits of the rest of the laws that apply to them, to decide what they will and will not allow on the platforms they provide.

In any case even the US does have laws which limit freedom of speech. The laws against defamation - libel and slander - being one example. Even enthusiastic supporters of freedom of speech usually don’t want to extend the right to spammers who would flood email and forums with spam and make the internet unusable. Or to peadophiles sharing child-pornography.

And pointing out where someone is wrong is not taking away their freedom to say things that are wrong. Just pointing out that what they are saying is wrong.

[KickahaOta]

In reality, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall not pass laws limiting freedom of speech.

The Amendment only has any power at all within the United States and is irrelevant anywhere else. It only affects Congress and laws passed by Congress. Private companies or anyone else not the US Congress, such as Facebook, Twitter, this forum etc. are free, within the limits of the rest of the laws that apply to them, to decide what they will and will not allow on the platforms they provide.

Now here is an example of where you have to be careful in putting together a list like this. It's good to simplify complex things. But you have to be careful not to oversimplify to the point of being factually wrong.

First, despite the "Congress shall make no law" phrasing, it's pretty much settled that the protections in the Bill of Rights apply to the (U.S.) federal government as a whole, not just to Congress and legislation. All three branches have to respect Constitutional principles.

Second and more concretely, it used to be the case that the Bill of Rights only affected the federal government, and did not apply to the states. But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment -- which protects the "privileges or immunities" of Americans from infringement by State governments, and requires "due process" -- essentially "incorporated" most of the Bill of Rights, making those rights apply against state and local governments as well.

Your overall point is still sound; the First Amendment still doesn't (usually) restrict the activities of non-governmental people and businesses. And it certainly doesn't apply to governments outside the United States.

[Pottapaug1938]

Magna Carta. Despite the mistaken beliefs of those bamboozled by the Evil Powers who work under Illuminati direction and control, who claim that the various versions of the MC are no longer valid, except arguably for two articles -- and then, only in a general sense, the Magna Carta is the Fount of All Liberties for free men on the land, who are the true sovereigns in our society. Among other things, the MC gives people the right to declare themselves in Lawful Rebellion, whenever the Queen of any of her minions (or, if you aren't British, insert your Head of State's name -- unless you believe that they must answer to Her Illegal Majesty) pass any legislation which oppresses the People and deprives them of their rights under Natural or Common Law (which no statute can take away).

Or, something like that.

[Dr. Caligari]

Common law: In the real world, this term has a number of different and conflicting meanings.

In U.S. legal writing, I see the phrase "common law" used in three different senses:

(1) It can refer to the general legal system of English-speaking counties, as an antonym to "civil law." (E.g., "England, the U.S. and Canada are common law countries; France, Spain and Germany are civil law countries.")

(2) It can refer to those parts of the law which are based primarily on judicial precedents rather than on legislative enactments, as an antonym to "statutory." (E.g., "In New York, libel is a common-law tort but securities fraud is a statutory tort.")

(3) Finally, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to trial by jury in federal courts in "Cases at common law," uses the term as an antonym for "equity." To this day, federal courts decide whether there is a right to jury trial in a civil case by trying to figure out if the type of case is more like cases that, in England in 1791 (when the 7th Amendment was ratified), were tried in the Court of King's Bench ("common law cases") or in the Court of Chancery ("suits in equity").

[Siegfried Shrink]

Let us not forget that dear old favourite,

Maritime law; hard to pin down exactly what sov-cits and similar think this is as it is always so wierdly distorted with word magic to mean anything they want it to mean.
In reality, a lot of fairly boring stuff about shipping and related matters, covering subjects like demurrage, general average and bills of lading, and pretty clear that berth and birth were not synonyms.
Many years ago I had a Finnish friend who was studying maritime law in London, his English was very good but he'd run chunks of it past me to make sure he had the meanings right, and a little of it stuck.

[rosy]

Success. A word that has multiple meanings with the SovCit/Magnum Carter/Wawful Webellion crews. It can mean more than two people turning up to a meet/moot/gathering - but never more than four because that has never happened. It can mean being imprisoned, because then they are 'sticking it to the man' by getting three hots and a cot for free. It can mean getting the bailiffs to return a debt to the creditor - even though the debt is still owed as are the bailiff's fees. It can mean turning a minor problem, such as the offer of a speed awareness course following a low level speeding offence, into six points & £1200 fine for not furnishing the driver's details. It can mean bankruptcy (because that wipes most debts out). It can even mean being evicted from a property, losing one's job and having one's marriage fall apart.

What it really means in the real world - something that improves a person's life such as negotiating with creditors to get interest frozen and an affordable repayment schedule, while not trashing the credit rating.

[He Who Knows]

WeRe Bank - A banking system invented by Peter of England (aka Alan Peter Michael Smith) who claims to be legally qualified (LLB) and supposedly has a background including military service and running an investment software company.

Now claiming hundreds of members, the WeRe Bank is simple to join. Pay £10 per month via Paypal and pay £25 for your very own RE cheque book complete with Allonges. You also have to lodge a £150,000 promissory note as some sort of collateral. Although Peter also has other “assets” in the form of bonds and his own 1% transaction tax.

The cheque books are quite convincing but appear to be identical, lacking an account holder's name, unique account number or valid sort code. Indeed the sort code appears to be Peter of England's date of birth in reverse.

The Bank has been heavily promoted by Ceylon, Get out of Debt Free and Peter of England’s site and Facebook page and he has had numerous sign ups from the gullible and frankly desperate. Sadly these poor saps have signed up and run with it “paying off” mortgages, council tax bill, credit cards, parking fines and utility bills. Some have even written cheques for £120,000 to clear a mortgage.

The Germans weren't having any of it though. They recently laughed poor old Peter right out of court.

[aesmith]

Full Disclosure. This is another term trotted out as if they thought it had some sort of magical meaning. Typically it just gets thrown to their rants and ramblings without clarification .. full disclosure of what? Another term blindly borrowed from US legal conventions?

[fortinbras]

With reference to the Seventh Amendment, and its promise of jury trials for a mere $20, it says: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ......"

If this were interpreted amateurishly, that every lawsuit, even in Small Claims Court, got a jury trial, the legal system would quickly grind to a halt. Jury trials cost a great deal more than $20 and the expenses would be ruinous. Etc.

So this Amendment is legally interpreted to mean, IF this current lawsuit could have been brought in 1789 under the then-existing rules of common law lawsuits (to the exclusion of equity suits), then and only then does it get a jury for a mere $20. (I don't think they require it values itself at 20 Spanish silver dollars of 1789, which would be worth a great deal more than a Jackson.) Very few cases meet this criteria. Otherwise cases have to meet the federal statutory threshhold of diversity of citizenship, yada. yada, yada, plus several thousand dollars at issue, to get a jury trial in federal court.

[LordEd]

statute - law to be ignored completely. Forever. No exceptions.

The portions that give rights/privileges are hard and fast law. The rest are optional.

[Pottapaug1938]

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle; Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent. While some humorless soreheads may point out that the correct spelling is "Principal", here, and point out that only half of this phrase ever has any legal validity; they are all agents of the Oppressive and Illegal Government Illegally Set Up By Insiders Who Were Only Supposed To Revise The Articles Of Confederation, Not Replace Them, and thus can be ignored. What's important here, is the fact that these are Magic Words which can repel the evil minions of the De Facto law.

Nunc pro tunc. As with Praeteria Preteria (c.f.), no one knows what these phrases really mean; but they are gen-yoo-wine Lawyer Talk phrases, and they must be included in every Constitutional Document (the REAL Constitution, not the fake one the gummint wants us to believe exists).

[TheNewSaint]

Nunc pro tunc. As with Praeteria Preteria (c.f.), no one knows what these phrases really mean

Nunc pro tunc, literally "now for then", is a legit legal term that means something is to be applied retroactively.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I actually found a genuine nunc pro tunc in a law report I commented on, on a US case. It meant the court appointed lawyer could count his appointment from a few days before to get paid from that point.

[MaritalArtist]

Birth certificate - an account to get free stuff.
A4V - free stuff.
Promissory note - free stuff.
Honour - I have proved I'm owed free stuff.
Dishonour - you won't give me free stuff.

[The Observer]

Sovrun/FOTL: People who believe they deserve free stuff.