And/or in propia persona. There is an actual difference where pro se means you are your own attorney, ipp means you show up as yourself. The nitty gritty is that ipp means you do not have to act as a lawyer, for you are just a layperson appealing to the court.
This is probably the worst thing with sovcits, because many of the things they say aren’t exactly crazy. Many of the things they claim are 100% Factual, but as applied is no, and for their individual circumstances usually a hard no. A good example is the whole traveling thing, the constitution does forbid the impediment of travel source, and the 14th Amendment which requires thats states “bend the knee” so to speak to feds. With no Federal laws in place for vehicular movement, that lawlessness usurps state regulation. This actually makes sense, and logically we would fix this loophole, instead we say the loophole does not exist? A good corollary is Title 49 USC 40103 which explicitly states what the sovcits claim except only for aircraft and that is where federal regulations actually exist.
Or their public defendant finally gets a word in to say every extra tweet is another nail in their legal coffin. Not that they’d ever listen.
A true sovcit appears in front of court PRO SE.
And/or in propia persona. There is an actual difference where pro se means you are your own attorney, ipp means you show up as yourself. The nitty gritty is that ipp means you do not have to act as a lawyer, for you are just a layperson appealing to the court.
How often does that work out? Because I’m guessing the answer is “almost never.”
This is probably the worst thing with sovcits, because many of the things they say aren’t exactly crazy. Many of the things they claim are 100% Factual, but as applied is no, and for their individual circumstances usually a hard no. A good example is the whole traveling thing, the constitution does forbid the impediment of travel source, and the 14th Amendment which requires thats states “bend the knee” so to speak to feds. With no Federal laws in place for vehicular movement, that lawlessness usurps state regulation. This actually makes sense, and logically we would fix this loophole, instead we say the loophole does not exist? A good corollary is Title 49 USC 40103 which explicitly states what the sovcits claim except only for aircraft and that is where federal regulations actually exist.