Ok, so I read the back of the card and was curious what “Public Law 92-500 Section 2” said and how it gives these people super powers.
As far as I can tell, it’s the Clean Water Act from 1972 and it authorizes federal funds to build sewage plants, and regulations on what you are allowed to dump in the water.
Am I looking at the wrong Public Law? Or is this just a random set of numbers to make it sound official?
Obviously, I didn’t expect to find what they think is in there, but I expected at least something that could be misinterpreted as such.
Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:
"SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf "(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation,
Which is duplicated here in some part here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1365
They’re very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.
under this Act
So they choose not to read these words right here? Because they might have a point if this and everything else after it were left off, but this literally only gives them authority to act in regards to this one specific law about water treatment.
I guess you have to be used to taking things wildly out of context to fall in with the sovcit crowd…
Well, sobbies are untreated effluent released into the environment.
Is that use of “effluent” referring to sewage!? Please let that be true, it would be amazing.
Are you sure, jumping the shark is the correct phrase here?
As long as its in red ink
Okay so this appears to be
a picture
of a screen
showing a picture
with a differently-sized picture
of their phony ID.
Do I have that right?
Sure.
The website on the back at the bottom is just a parked domain, nationalrepublicregistry.com
And nsea.us is also coming soon… Copyright 2007
“Sex: woman”
Lol
Sometimes their IDs say “Genus: Masculine”.
I’m laughing too hard at
Non-resident, non-domicile.
Odd. My sovcit state national county ID says “Sex: when I can”.
Not a valid ID. No thumbprint and the signature isn’t at a 45 degree angle.
Supreme, national, competent?
At least a couple of these are wrong.
Of course they’re an Uppie.
I love how much text is squeezed on to the back of the card, any design/formatting to match the front just goes away under a truckload of word salad.
Wtf?!
Lemmy introduce you to sovereign citizens.
What’s with the weird flag?
It’s a misinterpretation of the flag that flew on a US Customs house two hundred years ago. I’m a bit fuzzy on why they like it so much, but I think it’s something like the “real” flag is part of the oppressive fake government and this one is the one that represents a proper civil and voluntary association of sovereign citizens in “America”.
Non-citizen National ID
The sheer dissonance of this one thing just set my brain on fire.
no tacit/implied contract accepted
Honestly, if I could carry a magic talisman that made me immune to EULAs, posted signage I didn’t read, and the like, I’d buy it. But then we’d all be doing that.
Isn’t it wild? They are so batshit.
so… that thing says “exempt from foreign jurisdiction” What the fuck does that even mean ? Do they really think that if they go to like France, this piece of paper will prevent french police from doing whatever they are authorized to do ?
They cannot, it says “do not detain, do not hold” right there.
