Sovrun Paraleguls

[grixit]

Sad. Their sovbuds give them a bag of marshmallows and send them into combat.

[notorial dissent]

Definitely canon fodder.

[Tevildo]

I have to say that I agree with Herron's Magistrate, I don't understand what he is going on about any more than he apparently does. I also do not think "subrogation" means anything near or like what he thinks it does, but I am curious if anyone can explain what he does think it means since this seems to be a particularly footl confusion of law rather than sovcit?

As I understand it, this is similar to appointing the court (or a named court official) as your trustee. Your (mythical) claim to the millions held by the Vatican (or whoever) against your birth bond can be subrogated to the court, and they then have the ability to apply the equity in this claim to satisfy the (actual) claim against you. This video from a transparent snake-oil website (YouAreLaw.org - do we have anything on them?), incoherent B.S. though it may be, has a statement of the theory.

[notorial dissent]

OK, makes sense in that context. US sovcits do a version of that trying to appoint the judge or prosecutor as their "trustee" or "attorney" and they get all upset when it doesn't work. I don 't think I've ever come across one of them using subrogation in that context, really can't remember the last time I came across it in anything. They don't know what it means or actually works either for what it is worth.

[Footloose52]

subrogation
/ˌsʌbrəˈɡeɪʃ(ə)n/
nounLaw
noun: subrogation

the substitution of one person or group by another in respect of a debt or insurance claim, accompanied by the transfer of any associated rights and duties.

[Gregg]

If they appoint me to oversee their affairs they ain't gonna like it when I sell everything they own and drop them off at a shelter like an unwanted puppy. Which I would totally do (to them, I'd never do that to a dog).

[YiamCross]

subrogation
/ˌsʌbrəˈɡeɪʃ(ə)n/
nounLaw
noun: subrogation

the substitution of one person or group by another in respect of a debt or insurance claim, accompanied by the transfer of any associated rights and duties.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, subrogation is essentially what happens when a debt collection agency buys a debt. They take on the rights and duties the original creditor had with regard to the debtor. So these idiots are trying to use the process they claim doesn't count when it's applied to their creditors to somehow get them out paying what they owe?

The irony.

[Gregg]

The basis of the theory is something like this. Bank of Buckingham loaned me some money, and then sold the loan to Bank of Birmingham. Since Buckingham has been repaid, I don't owe them anything, and since I never borrowed anything from Birmingham, who are they to say I owe them anything. QED, I'm golden.

They at least should think they owe Birmingham a holiday card, it was so nice of them to pay off the debt for them. Evil Banksters sure do a lot of nice things for no reason....

[Hercule Parrot]

The basis of the theory is something like this. Bank of Buckingham loaned me some money, and then sold the loan to Bank of Birmingham. Since Buckingham has been repaid, I don't owe them anything, and since I never borrowed anything from Birmingham, who are they to say I owe them anything. QED, I'm golden.

Quite so, but I think Mr Herron intended a different meaning as his hearing related to council tax.

By his own account he went into court with a list of fuckwitted nonsense. Questioned whether the magistrate was "under her oath" and demanded a "common law court", probably looked for a gold fringe on the flag! My guess is that he's got no clue what subrogation actually means. But he's seen some tripe on Facebook or YouTube, how you can "demand your right to subrogation" and win court cases.

Utterly pathetic. He would've been better off relying on Harry Potter spells.

[notorial dissent]

I think if you just put it all down to "he's got no clue" you'll have pretty much covered it all, and he quite obviously doesn't.

[TheHallouminati]

For shits and giggles, here's how a NZ cop answers a freetard-style question:

A North Island police station received this question from a resident through the feedback section of a local Police website:

“I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?”

In response, a sergeant posted this reply:

First of all, let me tell you this … it’s not easy. In the Palmerston North and rural area we average one cop for every 505 people. Only about 60 per cent of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as “general patrols”) where we do most of our harassing.

The rest are in non-harassing units that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents. At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60 percent of general patrols are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty. So, roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 6000 residents.

When you toss in the commercial business and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 15,000 or more people a day.

Now, your average eight-hour shift runs 28,800 seconds long. This gives a cop two-thirds of a second to harass a person, and then only another third of a second to drink a Massey iced coffee AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to the challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilise some tools to help us narrow down those people we can realistically harass.

PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. “My neighbour is beating his wife” is a code phrase used often. This means we’ll come out and give somebody some special harassment. Another popular one is, “There’s a guy breaking into a house.” The harassment team is then put into action.

CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or drivers with no licences and the like. It’s lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file.

LAWS: When we don’t have phone or cars, and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called “statutes”. These include the Crimes Act, Summary Offences Act, Land Transport Act and a whole bunch of others… They spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the law, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offences and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, the book says that’s not allowed. That meant I had permission to harass this guy.

It is a really cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because, for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they pay us to “harass” some people.

Next time you are in Palmerston North, give me the old “single finger wave”. That’s another one of those codes. It means, “You can harass me.” It’s one of our favourites.”

Unknown Author

[notorial dissent]

Probably went right over the harassee's po' widdle head, but....

[Hercule Parrot]

Fantastic!

[hucknallred]

Just checking in on old threads. I'll leave this here, that is all.



https://www.facebook.com/groups/2272653 ... 557099007/

[aesmith]

Shame the old Goofy has finally gone or I could have linked to a thread where someone tried this one, pursued the £5,000 and got hit with costs of over £3,000. I have to make do second hand quotes ...

i placed the sticker in my window and have still received 5 parking tickets so far haha, my first ticket i challenged going down the common law right to travel unhindered, and that im a human and that the council had no authority over me using the 2004 road traffic management act without my consent. however my challenge asking for proof of claims was sent to an independent adjudicator and today i received the judgement and my challenge has been dismissed and i must pay £50 to the council!!! i firmly believe whats been said about our common law rights and that corporations such as a council have no jurisdiction over humans without consent, but this is clearly not working! Any advice on what to do next would be greatly appreciated.

Oh no! I have just issued a small claims [for £5,000] re a PCN. Does this mean that the Legal Notice we post on our windscreens is actually NOT legally enforceable?

Yvette

I was ordered to pay £3089 in defence costs [to Vinci PS] because they got a strike-out application in before a hearing had been set, which means the case had not been allocated to the small claims track yet.

[mufc1959]

Ah yes. And IIRC, the original parking ticket was cancelled by the issuer. The £5,000 invoice was pursued as a matter of principle, which ended up turning a cancelled £30 parking ticket into a £3,000 judgment debt.

[exiledscouser]

Ah Sovrn paralegals. This seems to be the work of just one man David Giaramita who talks in a most peculiar way, using “eye” instead of I, prefers Sonday over Sunday, refers to women as SiS-tars and men as “womb-men”, stretches etymology by odd parsing of words and there’s plenty of nunc pro tunc-ing going on to boot. He subscribes to the view that a cop not wearing his hat is undertaking “policy” work, that’s the first thing plod must have to learn at cop school.

I do wish he wouldn’t hide behind a closed group as his comedy potential isn’t reaching out to the widest audience.

[NedSeagoon]

Ah yes. And IIRC, the original parking ticket was cancelled by the issuer. The £5,000 invoice was pursued as a matter of principle, which ended up turning a cancelled £30 parking ticket into a £3,000 judgment debt.

Ahhh, mongonomics.

... David Giaramita ...

That sounds fun. <Google....'David Giaramita'.....Search....>

[Pottapaug1938]

https://www.splspro.com/

Among other things, he is a fan of [sic] Equity Lawyer Edward William Ellis; but only the Anointed may view the page. They are hoping for 10,000 members; but they only have 638.

[John Uskglass]

mongonomics.

I realise that its a fine line when we're talking about very stupid people, but in my book that's offensive. I was going to explain why, but actually, I think its obvious. I'll assume you misspoke.