so they have the “right” to rack up debt then rip-off the credit providers? they just think they found a “loophole” to steal?
They think, and I am being serious, that the government has a secret bank account created in their name at birth worth 2 million dollars, and this is a “trust” they can use to pay for things by writing nonsense documents to various officials. They think that money was outlawed by the US government and that you can only pay in real silver.
Wait what!? If they think money is outlawed by the US government how do they explain let alone go to the grocery store? And who do they think issued all the money that exists everywhere
It’s simple. Other people don’t know that money is outlawed and they use it. So a sovciv will use it too, and when asked to pay, they try to weasel out by saying money isn’t real.
They think, and I am being serious, that the government has a secret bank account created in their name at birth worth 2 million dollars,
I have so many questions!
Someone told them they got $2m, they’ve never seen anyone officially acknowledge this, they’ve never seen any of their friends that believe the same thing produce anything close to proof this exist…and they believe this?
Why $2million? Why not $1million or $1billion?
If the government outlawed money, wouldn’t the $2 million also be outlawed or at least worthless?
If they think the government outlawed money, what do they call all the currency we’re carrying around and why do they even want it?
I don’t expect you to have answers. I understand you’re reporting the crazy, not a believer in it.
From this article: https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/sovereign-citizens/
"Financial schemes Tax protest and financial schemes form an important part of Sovereign Citizens’ acts of resistance. One of such practices is known as the ‘redemption scheme’. It rests on the assumption that the U.S. government uses its citizens as collateral to pay off foreign debts.
According to this theory, the government uses people’s strawmen identities to set up secret trusts in their names that hold hundreds and thousands of dollars. Some Sovereign Citizens believe that by filing certain IRS forms or by signing bills and tax forms with notices like “Accepted for Value”, they can access and spend the money in their secret account. Other financial schemes include efforts aimed at evading state and federal income taxes, hiding assets or eliminating debts. Most of these activities are considered fraudulent and result in bank, tax or wire fraud charges. "
The 2 million part seems to be a randomly assigned number but it’s what I see them claim again and again.
The rest of your questions I can’t answer except to say sovcits sure do use money when it suits them.
ah ok thanks, that makes sense. Not like how things in reality make sense but it makes sense they would think that and then behave the way they do as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcxZFmKrxR8 The rabbit hole goes fucking deep.
just do it the actual legal way and declare bankruptcy like the rest of us 🙄
A lot of the times these sovcit types of people try and “pay” their debts using a secret bank account the US government provides. I think in this case he’s trying to argue that since he never signed a physical contract, he doesn’t need to pay his debts. He is seemingly unaware that contracts can be proven by actions. If he used the card, he accepted the terms of payment.
Stop saying 'wet signature ', jesus christ
Tell me about your moist fringe
This is the first I’ve ever heard of the phrase. I… what does it even mean, or what do they think that it means?
probably a physical signature with ink
In order to be taken to court they have to prove you’re in breach of contract.
That’s just how things work.
The person is saying show me where I signed the contract you’re suing over.
This is all very standard in corp / contract law.
That’s not what the guy is asking for when he says wet signature. He wants them to produce a document with actual fresh wet ink on it. If it’s not fresh wet ink then to him it’s not valid.
That’s my understanding of that spell.
I’m under the impression that wet signature means the original signed contract, not a copy or facsimile. Basically this person is saying “Prove that you and I have a contract by producing the actual piece of paper that I signed.”
One of the reasons lots of legal documents were originally signed in blue ink was because it would be easy to tell if you were looking at a black and white copy. Obviously this is less relevant recently.
Everytime I see this argument, I have the same thought:
If he demands something he knows doesn’t exist, why did he accept the money?
Further, if they accept his fairy tale premise of an ink signature does that mean the SovCit committed fraud to obtain the loan?
That makes more sense.
These people must really hate modern technology then.
I’d love to know where these kinds of sovcit lore come from - is this a whole-cloth invention or is there some real legal document that mentions a wet signature?
TBH I think “dry signature” might be even worse
But the worst is between those two.
Moist signature.
When the other party says receipts are proof of debt it sounds just as silly.
Imagine if creditors could take anyone to court just by showing a receipt.
The thing is you have to sign a credit card application. So in this case the creditor should have been able to show the person signed for this debt via " wet signature"
The fact that they didn’t is their fuck up. Receipts aren’t contracts.
There’s no way bank of America doesn’t have the original papers he signed. The guys either making up that they couldn’t provide it as evidence, or he’s calling that application a receipt.
I’ll bet it’s actually an e-signature thing, which is part of why he’s so hung up on the wet signature part
Part of signing up for a credit card is agreeing to terms of service, utilizing the card is tacit proof that you have already negotiated a contract.
Which is why the lawyer was attempting to get him to admit that he is the one utilizing the card.
NOW they’re confused??
I assure you they were VERY sure of themselves before they walked in that court room.
Looks like someone is about to win a stupid prize
These never cease to amaze me.
I’ve been reading their legal cases on CanLii today and it’s so wild.
Links?
Sure, it’s under here: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=Pseudolaw&resultIndex=91&searchId=2024-02-22T20%3A06%3A46%3A125%2Fd9c9a639195f435380abf42d66e6ef40
This is a list of all relevant judgements with regards to what is called in Canada pseudolaw. It makes for some hilarious reading, and it’s actually really neat to see how the judges make decisions around these cases.
Some of those are good, and are, of course, in my home province.
These people are so gullible. Just like the Romana Didula crap.
Oh Alberta you so full of crazies.
