Isn’t signing the paper just saying that you’re okay to delay your case until you can be scheduled a hearing in front of a court? It’s not an admittance of guilt, so duress does not apply.
The “duress” part comes from the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which are laws governing all commercial transactions within the US. It still doesn’t apply because getting a ticket isn’t a commercial transaction, but SovCivs believe everything is a commercial transaction including interaction with the government.
UCC 1-308 is a section that says a party can partially fulfill a contract without agreeing to all of the contract terms. They must do so by explicitly stating they are completing part of the contract “without prejudice” or “under duress”. That’s why SovCivs write these words on everything.
Language is magic for these people, specifically the right grouping of words is supposed to be an incantation to get them out of social responsibility, and the wrong collection of words is what binds them.
Since the state regulates "driving" of vehicles, no sovcit drives. They all "move" vehicles or "transport" vehicles.
It's ridiculous, because law revolves around actions independent of how anyone in specific describes those actions, but that's the mindset of these people. Viewing their beliefs as a kind of word Tetris has at least helped me wrap my head around what could possibly give them some of their strange notions of law.
That’s how it all started. Guys in planes with handguns.
The French eventually put a forward-mounted gun on the plane but had to install deflectors on the prop that would protect it from bullets. On the German side Fokker developed an interrupter gear to be mounted onto the Fokker Eindekker which prevented the mounted gun from discharging when the propeller was in the way. It wasn’t perfect, but better than the deflectors.
ETA: The story goes that Fokker himself went up to demonstrate the forward-mounted machine-gun with the interrupter gear, but once he got behind an Allied scouting plane, he didn’t have the heart to kill the crew. It didn’t take long, before other pilots gladly started shooting down enemy planes.
With biplanes, guns were sometimes mounted on the upper wing to evade the problem, though eventually the central powers developed their own interrupter gear mechanism.
Note that those flying contraptions were considered more valuable than pilots, and they were sent up without parachutes in order to given them incentive to return with the plane, or at least get it to the ground with less damage. As I flew WWI flying simulations, I noticed I had a while to think up some good last words while staring at the looming ground. Too bad no one would ever hear them.
Who is “we” and what are “our” goals? Those definitions will answer your question quickly enough.
All movies that glorify military violence should be treated cautiously even if the overall message is anti-war. Take Apocalypse Now. What will some people remember? The helicopters, Wagner, napalm in the morning. That’s not saying there’s no value in such movies, though.
Their goals: shine a light on how fucked war is. I cannot actually remember watching a war movie that didn’t make me deeply saddened by the brutality. Apocalypse now is a perfect example.
lemmy.world
Hot