notorial dissent wrote:What's really entertaining is when they don't change the names or case numbers in the interior of the filings from when they were originally for something else entirely unrelated, and even more entertaining when the cites are to civil law and procedure as opposed to criminal when the case at hand is a criminal matter. That is always a perennial favorite
Over the years we have seen some really bad scholarship from this crew.
A favorite of American tax protesters was to cite dismissed arguments brought before the courts as if they were the accepted rulings of the courts.
The detax/freeman/sovcit/GOOGF/TFL subculture's self-deluding ruse is to pretend that any question they ask constitutes a controversy in law. . .even though the question is already settled in law. We have seen freedumb folks show up here citing old, dead case law and pretending it's good because it is older than the new case law.
A example of the above being the recent chatter the amongst the subculture's phony scholars asking how cryptocurrency can be taxable, not realizing that the issue was settled in law years and years ago!
These folks are willfully ignorant.