Wannabe Sovrun Congressman (Joe E. Collins III)

[wserra]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Joe E. III: COLLINS - or, as he calls himself in his Congressional campaign, Joe E. Collins III. I'll call him "III:" for short. III: is a Republican running against long-time Rep. Maxine Waters in the southern L.A. district she has represented for some thirty years - meaning he has about the same chance of winning as would Ted Kaczynski. Still, nothing wrong with trying.

But there is something wrong with this guy trying. Not that long ago - 2-3 years - III: decided that he had issues over supporting his kid. He apparently tried standard methods with the CA Dept of Child Support Services and in CA state courts, losing. III: then decides that it's time for the big guns - he files a federal suit. 3:17-cv-02467 (CASD). He styles it "Joe E. III: COLLINS v County of San Diego DCSS". The complaint is a legal marvel; it contains every sovrun theory known to nitwits, fifty-three pages of authentic frontier gibberish.

For the first several pages, III: tries his hand at the law, resulting only in incomprehensible nonsense. Then he gets serious (page references to the pdf, because the actual complaint isn't numbered). III:, "a living, breathing man with a soul", "acting in a sovereign capacity" notifies them that supporting his child "violates [his] inalienable rights as a living breathing man" (p 20). Don't dare to trespass on his name, because III: is the property of Joe E. Collins (same). It will cost you at least $15M if you do (full fee schedule conveniently on p 27). His precious bodily fluids cost $100M (see schedule). He courteously set up a vehicle to receive the payments - the Royal Family of Collins Trust (pp 23-25). No ego problem there. He has, of course, copyrighted his name (p 29). For reasons that I admit escape me, he includes his birth certificate (p 36); perhaps he feels that the complaint requires proof that a sov-bot didn't write it. He "accepted for value" his Social Security card (p 40 - he left the number on it, which I redacted). He issued himself a $100B (yes, B) bond on his birth certificate, to be held by Steven Mnuchin, who I'm sure feels honored (p 41). Pages 46, 48 and 52 were intentionally left blank, which makes them by far the most meaningful of the bunch.

By this point, I'm sure you know what happened to III:'s suit: dismissed, of course. He tried to appeal; the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous. The CA GOP endorses him anyway.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I might not mind seeing this guy in Congress. There are plenty there already who are as dumb as he is. But I doubt they're as amusing.

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] The CA GOP endorses him anyway.

Good grief.

[noblepa]

[ . . . ] The CA GOP endorses him anyway.

Good grief.

Is this the guy that Trump just endorsed?

[noblepa]

I'll ask the same question about him that I asked about a "sovcit lawyer" in another thread: Isn't this an oxymoron?

Sovcits believe that statutes don't apply to living people, so why would they want to be a member of Congress, whose sole purpose for existing is to create statutes?

I suppose that the starting salary of $174,000 per year might have something to do with it.

He may also be one that believes that congress critters can retire after a single term with their full $174,000 pension. They do not. They must serve at least five years, just like anyone else, to receive any pension at all and then it is far less that $174K.

[HardyW]

Is this the guy that Trump just endorsed?

see here


Among the comments:

I bet he even has a flag that says "don't tread on my snake oil"

[The Observer]

I'll ask the same question about him that I asked about a "sovcit lawyer" in another thread: Isn't this an oxymoron?

Sovcits believe that statutes don't apply to living people, so why would they want to be a member of Congress, whose sole purpose for existing is to create statutes?

I have asked a similar question over the years: Why do sovruns who argue that the law does not apply to them or that the courts are corrupt repeatedly go into court to press their theories? If they are correct about their argument, isn't it a foregone conclusion that they are going to lose? So why bother paying filing fees and wasting paper on something that will not work?

[grixit]

Yeah, in 2016, i felt compelled to issue an apology to Lyndon Larouche, for all the times i ever said that he was too crazy to be president.

[wserra]

A post-script to the story of Joe E. Collins III follows. It is not as openly sovrun-like as the account above, but is nonetheless kinda revealing.

Collins makes a huge deal over his Navy experience. It features prominently in his commercials and websites. (No, I'm not going to post links, he can do his own SEO. If you're really interested, google him.) For example, he writes that his "patriotic service with the United States Navy has instilled into him a strong sense of duty, commitment and leadership"; he goes on at length about how he "served his country with distinction". He writes that he "moved on from the Navy in 2017".

Well, "moved on" is one way to put it. "Got kicked out" is another. His DD-214 gives the bottom line. His discharge (box 24) was "general (under honorable conditions)" - part way between "honorable and "dishonorable". The "separation code" (box 26) - the reason for his discharge - was "JKQ", which means "Misconduct, commission of a serious offense". "Narrative reason for separation" (box 28) confirms this: "Misconduct (serious offense)". What offense? Well, it appears that he was running for office while on active duty - kind of a no-no. He even set up a website to promote his candidacy - the URL is the same as one of his present sites. There were two other specifications (although it isn't clear how they figured in his discharge): providing alcohol to a minor and "having sexual relations with another service member in his direct chain of command". It will likely not shock the reader to learn that Collins fails to relate any of this in the midst of his self-adulation.

He actually sued the Navy over his discharge - as, of course, "Joe E. III: COLLINS". 17-cv-2451 (CASD). Not surprisingly, dismissed. In addition to the styling of his name, the hints of sovrunty in the complaint include the notion that, just by reading his website, the reader is bound by whatever nonsense he puts in it.

And once again: yes, the CA GOP endorsed the guy.

[TBL]

I agree it's crazy to endorse this guy, but honestly, he's probably the only choice in much of CA for the GOP. While they have a strong foot-hold in much of the state, cities are almost devoid of GOP opportunities.

[LaVidaRoja]

He's the sacrificial lamb. I.e. someone willing to run in a district that the GOP won't even bother to spend money in. The ONLY way Maxine Waters will loose is in a primary to another, younger Democrat. IF he hadn't been willing to put u his own money and time to gather qualifying signatures, there would not have been a Republican running in this District.

[Frater I*I]

Notwithstanding all of the above, I might not mind seeing this guy in Congress. There are plenty there already who are as dumb as he is. But I doubt they're as amusing.

If it's amusement you are looking for in Congress let me point you the way of one Marjorie Taylor Green, Republican candidate for congress from GA 14th district, and QAnon believer, she's in a 27%+ republican district, the Dems had a guy but he dropped out [not that he was going to win anyway].

I'm ashamed to live in this state.

[Foggy]

I keep seeing indications that as a whole, Georgia might come up with a majority vote for Biden, and nothing Brian Kemp can do to interfere. I hope that happens, and that it will cheer you up some.


OMG, my tenth post is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

[LawofImprobability]

With regards to the weird thing some crazies have with statutes, I can see a few paths (not mutually-exclusive).

1: The historic "common law" is more authoritative.
2: The earlier pseudolegal writers seemed to think revisions and codification acts violated some state constitutional requirements to deal with only one topic at a time and the idea mutated. See Fidelity Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek, 294 Ky. 122 (1943) (holding that the codification act was a revision, not just a codification but that it did not violate the state constitution).
3: The mutual exclusivity assumption little kids have in learning new words causes them to think statutes aren't a subcategory of laws but rather something else.

[wserra]

The subject of this thread has sued his opponent, Maxine Waters, for defamation in CA state court. This time, he used his real name (Joe E. Collins III), instead of the sov form ("Joe E. III: COLLINS") he used in the two suits described above, perhaps because he is represented instead of pro se. According to the complaint, in various campaign materials, Waters claimed that Collins had received a dishonorable discharge from the Navy.

That does appear not to be true. As I wrote above, based on his DD-214, Collins separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions - something that is neither an honorable nor a dishonorable discharge. When I saw the suit something clicked. In the order dismissing his suit against the Navy, the DJ wrote, "This action arises out of events related to Plaintiff’s dishonorable discharge from the Navy". While apparently in error, a federal court order should constitute a reliable basis for a claim, and therefore a defense to the actual malice that Collins, as a public figure, must show. OTOH, as Collins points out in his complaint, a dishonorable discharge would prevent him from getting veterans' health benefits, which he was in fact receiving. Can knowledge of that be imputed to Waters, who could have found out if she wished? Can knowledge of the consequences of different types of discharges then be imputed to her as well?

Who knows? I'm not going to do the CA research, if only because it's unlikely that the suit survives the election. If (as seems very likely) Collins gets blown out of the water (sorry), it will be kinda difficult for him to show that Waters' mistake made a difference - even assuming that he can show actual malice.

[Dr. Caligari]

If the suit was filed in California state court, Waters can file an anti-SLAPP motion, which is likely to lead to an early dismissal and an award of attorneys' fees.

[Gregg]

The subject of this thread has sued his opponent, Maxine Waters, for defamation in CA state court. This time, he used his real name (Joe E. Collins III), instead of the sov form ("Joe E. III: COLLINS") he used in the two suits described above, perhaps because he is represented instead of pro se. According to the complaint, in various campaign materials, Waters claimed that Collins had received a dishonorable discharge from the Navy.

That does appear not to be true. As I wrote above, based on his DD-214, Collins separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions - something that is neither an honorable nor a dishonorable discharge. When I saw the suit something clicked. In the order dismissing his suit against the Navy, the DJ wrote, "This action arises out of events related to Plaintiff’s dishonorable discharge from the Navy". While apparently in error, a federal court order should constitute a reliable basis for a claim, and therefore a defense to the actual malice that Collins, as a public figure, must show. OTOH, as Collins points out in his complaint, a dishonorable discharge would prevent him from getting veterans' health benefits, which he was in fact receiving. Can knowledge of that be imputed to Waters, who could have found out if she wished? Can knowledge of the consequences of different types of discharges then be imputed to her as well?

Who knows? I'm not going to do the CA research, if only because it's unlikely that the suit survives the election. If (as seems very likely) Collins gets blown out of the water (sorry), it will be kinda difficult for him to show that Waters' mistake made a difference - even assuming that he can show actual malice.

I believe it possible he was dishonorably discharged and it was later changed to other than honorable. I don't have a source for that, but I'm sure its not at all uncommon for discharges to be ''upgraded'' under some conditions.

[TBL]

If the suit was filed in California state court, Waters can file an anti-SLAPP motion, which is likely to lead to an early dismissal and an award of attorneys' fees.

A dismissal may be fast, but I doubt it qualifies for anti-SLAPP as it's a legitimate complaint. I think it irrelevant in a 71%-28% race, but if the facts show he legitimately has anything other than a dishonorable discharge, he has a valid complaint.