They think that because they do not “create joinder” by accepting the ticket that it doesn’t apply to them. They will “rescind” them by sending them back with some nonsense written on it at a 45 degree angle in red ink with a thumbprint and believe that cancels the ticket. Here is an example.
Ok, so obviously, this doesn’t work, but let’s pretend for a second that it does for my following question. Why would the red writing need to be at 45°?
Some of their reasoning isn’t known. The red ink, 45 degree angle, thumbprint stuff, nobody seems to know where it came from, not even the researchers who follow this stuff. Sovcits are only loosely associated with each other and there are subgroups of them (called American state nationals, secured party creditors, etc), so basically everything they do gets passed around via word of mouth, and each is more nonsensical than the last. It’s only the last handful of years that researchers have been taking a good look at them, but they’ve been around since the 1970s, so a lot of the origins are probably lost to history.
I would argue the drivers license is the proof of a contract stating you’ll follow the law pertaining to it. The ticket is a penalty for breaking that contract, not a new contract. But I know their lack of understanding logic.
I won’t claim I know what the “Truth in Lending” act is, or if it refers to red ink at a 45 degree angle. But even if it is real, I highly doubt it has anything to do with moving violations.
I frequently have to explain to people that the statue of limitations does not mean a ticket from 20 years ago is done with.
The truth in lending law or another similar law does indeed allow you to cancel a loan. Tickets aren’t loans obviously though. The goal is you could get a car loan or a mortgage, and then decide it was a bad idea and cancel the loan, and give back the property.
They think that because they do not “create joinder” by accepting the ticket that it doesn’t apply to them. They will “rescind” them by sending them back with some nonsense written on it at a 45 degree angle in red ink with a thumbprint and believe that cancels the ticket. Here is an example.
Ok, so obviously, this doesn’t work, but let’s pretend for a second that it does for my following question. Why would the red writing need to be at 45°?
Why are sovcits batshit crazy? Who knows. It is funny picturing a county clerk with a compass and ruler going “It’s 44.5°, we got them boys”
Just plain ol’ narcissism. Main Character Syndrome. With a lot of stupidity.
Some of their reasoning isn’t known. The red ink, 45 degree angle, thumbprint stuff, nobody seems to know where it came from, not even the researchers who follow this stuff. Sovcits are only loosely associated with each other and there are subgroups of them (called American state nationals, secured party creditors, etc), so basically everything they do gets passed around via word of mouth, and each is more nonsensical than the last. It’s only the last handful of years that researchers have been taking a good look at them, but they’ve been around since the 1970s, so a lot of the origins are probably lost to history.
I would argue the drivers license is the proof of a contract stating you’ll follow the law pertaining to it. The ticket is a penalty for breaking that contract, not a new contract. But I know their lack of understanding logic.
I see. That’s… Just so patently false on the face of it. I suppose if people want to believe hard enough, they will.
Not sure how they fail to understand the difference between a notice and an agreement but good luck to them, I suppose.
Why are they so obsessed with red ink and 45° angles? It’s so arbitrary.
I won’t claim I know what the “Truth in Lending” act is, or if it refers to red ink at a 45 degree angle. But even if it is real, I highly doubt it has anything to do with moving violations.
I frequently have to explain to people that the statue of limitations does not mean a ticket from 20 years ago is done with.
The truth in lending law or another similar law does indeed allow you to cancel a loan. Tickets aren’t loans obviously though. The goal is you could get a car loan or a mortgage, and then decide it was a bad idea and cancel the loan, and give back the property.
Yep, I’m sure it is a real law but does not apply to moving violations or parking tickets.
Also yea, sounds like a very reasonable law. Any idea if the red ink at an angle is a part of it?
It’s so The Revenuers can’t use the document in court against you, duh. You done rurnt it. Checkmate, Gubmint.
/s