this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
104 points (98.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40598 readers
687 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The phenomenon of sovereign citizens persistently trying to win court cases with their principles, despite a lack of success, is indeed puzzling. On YouTube alone, there are around 5,000 videos showing sovereign citizens facing defeat in the courtroom. These individuals often make claims that have yet to prove successful and frequently end up incarcerated.

Why do people continue to adopt this seemingly futile approach? It's akin to watching 5,000 parachutists attempt a failed jump from the Eiffel Tower, only for newcomers to keep trying despite knowing, or perhaps ignoring, the inevitable outcome. Despite the growing pile of mangled bodies at the base of the tower, every day people decide to climb up and try for themselves.

The dedication of these individuals is noteworthy; they invest a great deal of time mastering the intricacies of their "sovereign" defense. Yet, it seems that they dedicate little time to researching previous legal outcomes or understanding why their arguments haven't held up in court historically.

What drives this persistence? Is it a deep-seated belief system that overrides rational analysis, or is there another factor at play that encourages them to keep going despite overwhelming evidence of failure?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't it one of the fundamentals that everybody has the same right to go to courts?

So, even the idiots must be allowed.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying keep them out of courts. I'm saying that the followers of "sovereign citizenry" seem to lose 100% of the court cases where they try this defense. Yet, there's a continuous stream of people willing to try it.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 1 points 8 minutes ago

to lose 100% of the court cases where they try this defense

I don't think the litigants actually know this. The shady characters they are paying for the information probably know that, but represent that it will just work if they do it right.

Imagine you have some kind of legal problem, and you go to your lawyer, and your lawyer tells you they know what to do that will let you win. You'll probably do it. Now for the litigants, it is the same thing, except instead of a lawyer, it is some person with an Internet and/or in real life following, who dazzles you with lots of fake formality that aligns to your preconceptions of the legal system based on TV. Of course, it is all just pseudolegal and a scam, but you don't know that.

Now you might except that some critical thinking and/or research of authoritative sources like case law, or consulting a real lawyer might let the litigant see that it is a scam, but critical thinking skills are not as common as you might hope, and secondary education in many places doesn't cover much about the law or how to do legal research.

Consider that 49.8% of voters in the 2024 US Presidential election voted for Trump, even after seeing the first term. Many people are easily hoodwinked into acting against their own best interests, especially if they are convinced there is a community of other people like them acting the same way (SovCit like groups do have some numbers), that people who endorse those theories get a lot of recognition / are influential (the leaders of the groups can create that impression), and that their theories have a long traditional backing (usually they make up a historical backstory).