The first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights of the larger agreement (the constitution) are better enjoyed by those who can write and speak forth without relying on another man or woman (an attorney) to do so on their behalf.

Citizens of the United States, which means the entire family, most of the definitions in the link below, have a right to use the courts.

Unfortunately so many among us are functionally illiterate (unable to read and write legalize) and not educated in law so far too often this essential right goes not exercised.

The more competent attorneys can fully comprehend this comment posted here. But the uncooth among that line of business tend to not like a comment like this being posted, it's not good business for them.

Existing case law sets precedent that only those who can claim with standing as one of citizens of one of the several states, and not only a federal citizen (but also not a state citizen), have absolute and unqualified right to the first eight amendments. Some later case law extended and elaborated enjoyment of the first eight amendments to those who are only federal citizen (and not also state citizen), but didn't overturn the earlier notion that only state citizens have the absolute and unqualified right to the first eight amendments.

  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

▲ rootusrootus 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Claude is getting pretty good with this kind of stuff, I think I will update my vibe coded browser plugin to add a button to replace the post with Claude's explanation of what it means. I have to say, one of my favorite personal uses of Claude these days is whipping up browser plugins to make the web more usable.

In this case it leads off with "It’s sovereign-citizen pseudolaw" and then does a nice refutation. Apparently it's not really a novel argument.

> unable to read and write legalize

Did ya mean "legalese"?

	▲	jon128 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I did a word-o (Dvorak typist here) in a casually written comment. Thanks for pointing it out. You must be very studious. Any detail or point shared in the previous comment is backed with citations of existing case law. If you have a pointed question about any of it, there is case law for it. "That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country." Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927) "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United State citizen (federal citizen) is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957 "The governments of the United States and one of each of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other". Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) LLMs are great semantic search engines but they are terrible for this kind of stuff. The commercially provided LLMs are good at corporate law for corporate matters. I haven't seen an instance where they have been helpful for matters under Common Law. The long history of systemic semantic deceit is too strong for LLMs. Claude is a service provided by a private company. Claude is not a king who can dictate to USA what its laws are. Unless you are willing to do the necessary reading and comprehension yourself you aren't going to be equipped to meaningfully evaluate the substance of whatever "nice refutation". It's a lot of work. I don't like people who describe themselves as "sovereign citizen" because the compound term is an oxymoron and those who self-describe as such universally are morons. But likewise, those who reach for such a slander (it's as nasty as calling someone the "N word") instead of presenting an argument of substance are just as bad or even worse in a way as one is foolishness and the other is bigoted insidiousness. If you sincerely believe the "nice refutation" is true and correct, then sign a declaration under penalty of perjury for such. Otherwise all you have is piss in the wind. . >> Claude is getting pretty good with this kind of stuff Given that you already wrote "sovereign citizen" without presenting any argument (and even to what, exactly) nor cited any case law in your previous comment, you're a long ways on your journey to being qualified to comment to Claude being "pretty good with this kind of stuff" one way or the other. I have a driver's license too, but I only present it where having been pulled over in a car operated commercially (ie rented from a car company), but not ever in a car I actually own (not mere title to possess and occupy the property but lawful ownership of the property with the M.C.O.), and I didn't enter that simple contract through filling out the same forms you did but other government-provided forms. You and I are not the same kind of American, not that there is anything wrong with that. The system is in harmony.