There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

So a special appearance is a thing. Normally, if you appear in a case, you are consenting to the courts personal and subject matter jurisdiction. But what if you believe the Court lacks jurisdiction and you want to point that out and make arguments on it instead of blowing off the court date and being defaulted? That’s a special appearance.

Nornally it’s used for personal jurisdiction issues, because subject matter jurisdiction usually isn’t in dispute. Personal jurisdiction an be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction not only cannot be waived, it can be challenged any time and the court itself has a continuing duty to make sure its subject matter jurisdiction is not lost such as by dismissals or withdrawals of certain parts of the action.

In this case though, the statute charged was a criminal statute and they were in criminal court. There very clearly is subject matter jurisdiction.

Agent641 ,

What would be an example of a special case where the court lacks personal jurisdiction?

MJKee9 ,

Personal jurisdiction is when someone has enough contacts with a state to make having the lawsuit in that state fair. So you can be sued for causing a traffic accident in a state while only traveling through a state. But you shouldn’t be sued in a state that you have never visited and the conduct at the heart of the lawsuit is unrelated to your conduct in the state. Example: someone tries to sue you for defamation in Oklahoma (because that’s where they live) for a comment you posted on Lemmy. Unless you live, work, or have property in Oklahoma, it wouldn’t be fair to make you travel all the way to Oklahoma to defend a lawsuit.

urist ,
@urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Maybe I’m crazy but the more of these I read the more I feel bad for these people.

It’s like the law is so alien and arbitrary to them, that even when presented with strong evidence that they’re wrong, they can’t see they’ve been deceived. They’d rather live in a world where laws can be invalidated just because they’re unfair or arcane (as long as you know the magic spell of course…).

I kind of sympathize with that: the law IS alien and often arbitrary for us common folk.

echodot ,

The law isn’t hard to understand it’s just hard to understand the specifics of. That’s not quite the same thing.

I do not think anyone really believes that they are allowed to drive on a suspended license, they know they’re not allowed to drive on the suspended license, but they are selfish and they do not care. They just think that there’s some weird loophole that will allow them to get away with it.

The problem is, everything they think they know about the law comes from a facebook group of crazy people.

urist ,
@urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

But that’s the thing though: devil’s in the details. That’s why we hire lawyers. I mean, driving on a suspended license is illegal for everyone and it’s very obvious. Pretty much everyone gets the same ticket.

Just like stealing and embezzlement. Some guy at my work just got fired for that, and rightly so. He stole like, a hundred dollars worth of candy. They’re prosecuting him for it. Not sure why he did it, he was on camera taking an entire case, very silly stuff.

Too bad he didn’t steal 5.6 million dollars from 1,000 people. Then it would just be a civil case that takes 10+ years to litigate.

Edit: the dealers were actually seeking a combined 50 mil, and after legal fees (1.4 mil) and etc each got about 4K. Justice!

TheFriar ,

he acted dumb like he didn’t know what “natural man” meant.

Um…no one fucking does. You’re in a weird cult-like mind trap.

Zomg ,

It’s an actual thing:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

distinguished from the broader category of a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization.

WarmSoda ,

Ugh, do I read that and probably rabbit hole myself? Or ignore the link and move on…

Edit. You know what I did. And I’m not proud of it.

echodot ,

A natural person isn’t quite the same thing. It literally just means a human and not an organization or corporation. There are some legal differences mostly to do with culpability.

It doesn’t really come up very often.

What this lot seem to be going at is they think that their name, written as capital letters is some sort of corporation, set up against their will?, with their name and as such they are not the corporation and so cannot be charged. Which is obviously lunacy because a corporation has not been set up with their name and even if one had, they were the one doing the driving offenses, not the corporation (a corporation cannot commit driving offenses). But they’re all too thick for their own internal logic to apply.

In non-stupid crazy land if I am a truck driver and I commit a driving offense while driving for company XYZ then I committed the driving offense, not company XYZ. Unless I could prove that I had been given the instruction to drive unsafely, which of course is where all the things like tachometers come in. All this has already being decided long ago, so the stuff they are referring to doesn’t even apply.

AeonFelis ,

I read this differently. He says:

I asked if there was a “natural man” in the court room with a claim against me?

(The “plaintiff” on my paperwork stated “The People of the State of California vs. MY ALL CAPS NAME”)

So… I think he was trying to claim that only a natural person can be a plaintiff, and because he was sued by the government - which is not a natural person - the whole thing should be invalidated.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

only a natural person can be a plaintiff

A very strange position given the amount of case law of the form [person X] vs United States

Enkers ,

I just want to be left alone.

Bruh. No you fucking don’t. You want to use society’s infrastructure and benefits without contributing to it. If you really want to be left alone, go follow Alexander Supertramp’s lead.

Pons_Aelius ,

Holy shit.

The legal genius has spent several weeks in jail because of traffic infringement?

What an special person they are.

BonesOfTheMoon OP ,

“The judge seemed annoyed”. You don’t say.

BonesOfTheMoon OP ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f7f3aa36-14e7-4849-89cb-8ee2a08489d1.png

PorradaVFR ,

Narrator: he was, in fact, a criminal and did, in fact, make things worse for himself. He did not, however, gain any wisdom from this experience.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •