Picking Attorneys is Like Picking Kickball Teams: Don't Pick Yourself

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think we can all imagine what Sovereign Citizen wackos are like in court but what are these cases in checks notes America where people are referencing the Torah ?

.... I have no idea. I just remember that the authorities in one case included the Declaration of Independence, the Real Constitution (?), and the Torah.

For that matter, the Real Constitution did not seem to resemble the actual Constitution, but I can't recall what it was supposed to be. I try not to think about it too much, because you don't want to stare too long into that abyss.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I was going to say this if no one else had though I did not recall it being from Abe Lincoln.

"85% of all the quotes you see on the internet were first said by me, even the Shakespeare stuff."
-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Cadence]

I was going to say this if no one else had though I did not recall it being from Abe Lincoln.

I am obviously very bored...

A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

The attribution to Abe Lincoln might be widespread in part due to appearing in an episode of Bewitched?!?

 

[Ryujin]

I think we can all imagine what Sovereign Citizen wackos are like in court but what are these cases in checks notes America where people are referencing the Torah ?

Ten references that Sovereign Citizens use in court filings.

THE LAST ONE WILL SHOCK YOU!

You would likely be surprised at some of the garbage that makes it into their submissions. My instinct is that their tactics aren't about finding loopholes or actual Constitutional Law to support their stand, but rather the equivalent of a legal "persistence hunter." Outlast the prey and you win.

(Though some are clearly dumb enough to believe their own crap.)

 

[trappedslider]

 

[Deset Gled]

Quick question for y'all.

Given the disparities in the "likes" between this post and the prior post (which is the only engagement metric I have*), I wanted to ask the following-

1. Are you enjoying the subject matter of these posts, and want me to continue on the topic?

2. Should I spread them out a little more time-wise?


*Collateral question- should I start every post with a picture of a woman who looks shocked and a giant red arrow?

I wouldn't normally come out and say this, but if you're looking for opinions...

I think this thread would have been better as a continuation of the last thread, rather than a new one itself. Especially if it's going to be a series. I forsee a lot of overlap in the commentary. From the standpoint of forum organization, notification management, following long term discussions, and even knowing where to ask a question, I think it would be useful for this series to be contained in a single thread instead of a bunch. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think we can all imagine what Sovereign Citizen wackos are like in court but what are these cases in checks notes America where people are referencing the Torah ?

As I recall being taught, American courts can consider sources outside of our ecosystem of laws for guidance on how other legal systems and thinkers have addressed analogous problems. But those outside sources can’t be the sole basis for a decision. If you cite the Torah in your legal arguments, you’d better tie it into something within America’s legal system if you want to carry the day.

A classic example of this in action can be found in the legal proceedings Judge Richard Posner oversaw regarding LGBTQ civil rights to get married. While he was open to hearing about traditional values, etc., for denying those rights, he repeatedly asked for actual legal theories to underpin a reason to deny those rights. “We’ve always done it this way.” is not a legal argument, he’d tell the state attorneys. He similarly struck down every other position they raised- there were no arguments grounded in actual legal rationales.

With no positions being offered by the state having any legal foundation, Judge Posner became one of the earliest judges to strike down laws banning gay marriage.

 

[Milieu]

One other reason not to represent yourself, and why even lawyers (usually) hire other lawyers to represent them, is that your emotional investment in the case hinders your judgement. You might (for example) get caught up in making a particular argument a particular way because "I'm RIGHT, dang it!" Your lawyer will look at it dispassionately and try to find the argument that gives you the best chance at actually winning.

I've sometimes thought it would be fun to create a wizard who specializes in the magic of "bureaucramancy", subtly nudging the work of the bureaucracy in your favor. Sort of like a sovereign citizen if their tricks actually worked: say the right magic words and the case against you disappears.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've sometimes thought it would be fun to create a wizard who specializes in the magic of "bureaucramancy", subtly nudging the work of the bureaucracy in your favor. Sort of like a sovereign citizen if their tricks actually worked: say the right magic words and the case against you disappears.

That’s either a subset of Enchantment or a little known group of Power Word variants.

 

[Ryujin]

That’s either a subset of Enchantment or a little known group of Power Word variants.

I'd call it a straight-up Illusionist.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"