• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    This very much walks the line between “sovereign citizen lunatic” and “needs to be committed to a mental institution.” Although to be fair, it’s a pretty blurry line.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    271 year ago

    I do not know who you are and I do not understand your intent

    My dude, the name of the organization and the stated intent of the letter is literally in the envelop you’re writing on top of.

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2031 year ago

    “I DO NOT HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY WITH YOU” is about to be my go to line to get out of uncomfortable situations.

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      English
      481 year ago

      I love this assertion by them. Because it’s them saying they are an independent nation. But they are living on or within the US’s declared borders and do not have a treaty as the American Indians do. Therefore they’d qualify as invaders or secessionist and the US military/immigration authorities should have jurisdiction to prosecute them. Afterall, this Sovereign Citizen is currently abroad in another country.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      It’s a pretty weird claim. They think they are their own country? Okay then… Do they realize that foreign countries can be taken to war against their wishes? I hope so, because that’s probably going to happen to a lot of these people.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        The appeal is there. Imagine not having to pay any taxes or any of your bills. The idea practically sells itself to anyone who has no civics education.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        371 year ago

        Honestly their BS does kind of work they just seem unable to grasp that all the things they’re saying also apply to everyone else. They don’t have to aknowledge their electricity providers authority to charge them for electricity and the electric company doesn’t have to keep supplying it. Its like some kind of extreme narcisicm.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          'Cept in most locales you have to maintain your home’s “habitability status” to not get it condemned, which requires having a functional electrical supply. And usually also working plumbing, heat, some manner of cooking apparatus, and a refrigerator.

          “Muh Freedumb!” aside, these types of code requirements were as I understand it at least initially put into place to prevent slumlords from charging rent for an “apartment” that has access to none of the above.

          Anyhow, if you really don’t want to pay electric bills it’s really not too tough to get yourself some solar panels or something. Somehow that never occurs to these people. There are counties out in the boondocks where you are permitted by law to live fully off the grid if you feel like it, so maybe they ought to move there and quit bothering everybody with their nonsense.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think water and sewage are required but I don’t think electricity is because a property is technically habitable without power. As long as there is not a vulnerable person confirmed living at the address. I mean it all seems a bit arbitrary, but apparently those are the rules.

            I think it’s mostly about making it unpleasant for squatters without violating their human rights too much. It straddles the line but not too badly.

            • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              This is another one of them there varies by state/county/city things. Where I live you must be connected to the grid. This causes problems for people who don’t want to be connected to the grid, i.e. they have more than enough solar or windmill and battery capacity to not require it from a functional standpoint. But the county forbids you from not paying the local electricity monopoly their monthly bribe.

              This is relatively recent – as of the last 4 or 5 years or so. The power company now helpfully charges a “connection fee” if you use 0 kWh, which started happening exactly at the same time the law was passed to make it illegal not to be connected to them. I can’t help but conclude that these two facts are not coincidental.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                My previous area was like that, and that was why I didn’t bother getting a battery system for my solar. And the connection fee went up, and up, and up.

  • Ann Archy
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    All rights reserved, “without prejudice”.

    Are you sure about that, buddy?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “I’m a sovereign citizen your laws don’t apply to me, except when they pertain to rights that I like”

      I wouldn’t mind the movement too much if they actually practiced what they preached and went and lived on some large ranch somewhere in the middle of nowhere and grew all their own food and never left.

      They pretend that it’s like going back to basics hunter gatherer lifestyle, but really it’s just about not paying taxes.

      • Ann Archy
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I think it’s the general “mom said you can’t go over this line, what’re you gonna do, what’re you gonna do, what’re you gonna do, what’re you gonna do”.

        On principle they are right, in general they’re just intolerable little brothers.

  • Guy Dudeman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2961 year ago

    The MDHS State Disbursement Unit is the Child Support department. Dude went nuts because he doesn’t want to pay child support. What a POS.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      1111 year ago

      One of their biggest things they’re always trying to do is “discharge” theur child support.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        681 year ago

        Yeah they are. But fun fact, garnishments and liens work just as well without an INTERNATIONAL TREATY and a surprising number of these loons still work and own stuff.

        • Tar_Alcaran
          link
          fedilink
          201 year ago

          Yes but they’re their own country, and the USA needs to form a treaty to have say in their business, unless they’re “travelling” or receiving welfare or benefit in some other way

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        571 year ago

        “I don’t have anything to do with that kid! Why should I have to pay child support?”

        Unfortunately I know people like that in real life, who don’t seem to understand that the child support is largely because they want nothing to do with their kid

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If they were going to want the baby aborted, they shouldn’t have had sex without a condom. You don’t get to cum inside someone and then tell them what to do with it. Your jizz, your problem.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                Obviously not. They’re saying that the person that gets pregnant gets to decide whether or not they want to abort. It’s not the decision of the sperm donor.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31 year ago

                  So, a mother has a choice to opt out of paying for a child if they can’t afford it. But a father is given the same choice.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What a person does with their own body is entirely up to them. If you play your part in making that baby, and the person you came inside of plays their part too, you both have to pay for it. The sperm donor has one opportunity to opt out of being a parent, and that one opportunity is when they’re having sex.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  What a person does with their own body is entirely up to them.

                  Yes, but when one person has the choice to not have a child, the other person can express their desire to not raise the child.

                  If you play your part in making that baby, and the person you came inside of plays their part too, you both have to pay for it.

                  Why?

                  The sperm donor has one opportunity to opt out of being a parent, and that one opportunity is when they’re having sex.

                  Why?

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            If they are forced to be pregnant with it, that’s their choice.

            Have you ever spent nine months with a pregnant woman? They don’t do it because it’s fun.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago

                Child support isn’t meant to punish a parent that’s no longer in the child’s life. Even if thats the end result, it’s meant to support the child.

                Because of the bodily autonomy argument there won’t be true equality surrounding pregnancy because nobody has (or should have) weight of decision of whether to carry the child except for the person who does so.

                But if a child is brought into the world as a result, it needs to be supported. And that’s the responsibility of the parents- willing or not.

                I think that if male birth control becomes safe and available it will be much closer to equality.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                91 year ago

                No, it should not. When two consenting adults have sex without protection, the resulting pregnancy shouldn’t be the sole problem of the woman.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  She is the only one granted the choice to end the responsibility. The father is left with massive financial responsibility for 18 years, that the mother had the choice to prevent. This even occurs in cases of rape.

              • fkn
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your logic is fundamentally flawed. In several ways. I see several people arguing with you ineffectively because they assume you are arguing in good faith or have a coherent position… Neither of which I am convinced you possess.

                In the US (and most of the world) it is a fundamental right of bodily autonomy that any individual is not subjected to any forced medical situation in the support of another person’s life, regardless of that person’s age, gender or relationship with the other person. Even if we agreed on when personhood happens (I assume we disagree on it) at no point must one person give up their bodily rights for another. If you provide a special case for pregnancy then we are in a discussion of if your inconsistent belief structure is valid.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Your logic is fundamentally flawed. In several ways. I see several people arguing with you ineffectively because they assume you are arguing in good faith or have a coherent position…

                  You’re free to disagree with me, but everything I say on here is in good faith.

                  In the US (and most of the world) it is a fundamental right of bodily autonomy that any individual is not subjected to any forced medical situation in the support of another person’s life, regardless of that person’s age, gender or relationship with the other person.

                  Yep, I agree.

                  Even if we agreed on when personhood happens (I assume we disagree on it) at no point must one person give up their bodily rights for another.

                  I have no strong opinion on when personhood happens, I simply don’t know.

                  If you provide a special case for pregnancy then we are in a discussion of if your inconsistent belief structure is valid.

                  A special case for what? You never expressed your disagreement with me.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    Akan
    21 year ago

    It’s a shame because I agree with them in principle (I don’t feel like a UK citizen, I feel like a human) but they seem to lack awareness of reality. Yes, the government is overbearing and an unjustified power in your life, no that doesn’t mean you can pretend they don’t exist and not face consequences. I wish it were that easy

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    451 year ago

    Is this the kind of people who post disclaimers in social media that “unauthorize” the company running said social media from using the “content” they post there?

  • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    321 year ago

    These people are called Cookers where I’m from, because their brain is cooked.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    331 year ago

    Sovereign citizens are a hilarious little delight to break up the drudge that these times bring. There’s always a balance.

  • modifier
    link
    fedilink
    251 year ago

    I can’t believe we forgot to sign a treaty with this fellow.

    Hey, Blinken!!