Tamah Jada Clark is really, really upset about something — it’s not clear what. She has filed a legal something or other titled To Fuck This Court and Everything that it Stands For in which she chews out a judge, colorfully, and fails to make much of a case for anything. She apparently thinks she is not obligated to pay federal taxes? She does not recognize the fed because she is a Floridian-American? I don’t know. But she goes on for pages raging about the judge who dismissed her case.
I say all of this to say: Mr. Hunt, I don t give a d*mn about you or anything you have to say. You are a castrated coward and a disgrace to these United States of America. Fortunately for us all, you are in old age and presumably nearing the inevitable death that awaits all old impotent geezers like yourself, with a one-way ticket to hell; which is good. That s exactly where a treacherous, lying, spineless, bastard son-of-a-b*tch like you deserves to be for the rest of eternity. Burn.
Lastly, I will be posting the entirety of these court proceedings online and disseminating them amongst the general population, for the people to see this disgrace. You control nothing. You are nothing. And you can do nothing. F*ck you. Die.
I think she might be a little bit pissed off.
Just a little hint, though: it might be useful if you explained why this one particular old impotent geezer should die.
Wow. It’s just as well she starred out the vowels in “d*mn” and “f*ck”, or else her call for a fellow human being to die and be tortured for eternity might seem unpleasant.
Well at least she has a “cocked and loaded AK-47 assault rifle.” I sure feel safer now, and I bet the judge does, too. I also call shenanigans on her claim that the CIA has been trying to recruit her since grade school. Mind, I am not all that up to speed on the recruitment strategies of the US’s spy org, but I’m still pretty sure 3rd graders aren’t part of their hiring pool.
“UNREPRESENTED plaintiffs”
You don’t say.
YIKES.
Wow. She seems to think that she is a citizen of Florida and not the USA, and therefore does not have to pay federal income tax… she also seems to be under the impression that the founding fathers did not set up the federal government. Surely by setting up the USA, they by extension set up the federal government?
She also mentions being in possession of a “cocked and loaded” glock and AK47, but we’re not sure why…. and she seems to believe that the CIA and FBI have been trying to recruit her “since grade school”. Other than that it seems to be a lot of swearing, calls for the judge to die or undergo various forms of eternal torture, and declarations that she is too intelligent for everyone.
It’s all very strange.
@2 Onamission5
Isn’t that something from Stargate Atlantis? I seem to recall The CIA was trying to recruit Rodney McKay since 6th grade…she apparently was even more awesome.
I daresay she’s likely one of those “sovereign citizens” who like to clog up the courts with verbose BS paperwork like this. Her language about the government having been “taken over” and references to 14th amendment rights, citizenship is to the local state, etc. seem to indicate this.
My sister is certain that the NSA has been trying to recruit her for years. fortunately, she’s on the right meds now, and hasn’t been making that claim.
He is a disgrace to the United States of America….an entity which she refuses to recognize the authority of. God damn, people like this baffle me.
It took me about I month to study the history of the world and to learn the history and inner workings of American jurisprudence, literally.
The depth of your study of those subjects is apparent.
That’s a pretty common theme in the Sovereign Citizens movement. They argue that the true federal government was ousted somewhere along the way and replaced with an illegitimate one that has tricked everyone into thinking it has the authority to tax them.
John (8) beat me to it!
Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened:
She also mentions being in possession of a “cocked and loaded” glock and AK47, but we’re not sure why….
She mentions it because the judge said this in his order dismissing her case:
By way of background, this Court takes judicial notice of the following, which was gleaned from a perusal of various public records. Jason Joseph Clark was arrested in September, 2009, and ultimately convicted of aggravated assault, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and family violence battery. He received a combined thirty-year sentence, which he is currently serving at the Coffee Correctional Facility in Nichols, Georgia. A year later in September, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested near the jail where Mr. Clark was being held, driving with a 1 -year-old child, an AK-47 assault rifle, a .45 caliber pistol and numerous items for survival in the wilderness. She was arrested for conspiring to assist Mr. Clark in escaping from prison. It appears, however, that she might not have been convicted of these crimes.
This is one seriously messed up person.
She appears to be represented by the law offices of Dunning and Kruger.
Must be something in the Florida water or the foil hat is a couple of plies too thin.
“geezer”. now she’s just hitting below the belt.
WTF did I just read at that remote site, following your linky in the OP???
Such a diatribe of vitriol against a judge not granting her clemency from federal taxation bullies. So much 4words makes me go all tonetroll on her rant: Don’t trhough such language at the judge you’re opposing, it won’t go well for you, your language will make him go all nasty too.
… blacchh ….
So, she thinks she found a loophole to make all of us immune from federal income taxation, and she’s doin it first to teach us all the loophole, and the feds are so angry at her, they will slap her with anything they think of, to make her acquiesce to their unreasonable demands. That people are just blinded and mislead by that fraudulent country that is telling us, untruthfully, that each state’s citizens are federal citizens when it is mutually exclusive. Only D.C.ites are federal citizens, everybody else is a citizen of the State they domicile in.
uckkk
that screed was a mouthful (so many cusswords in that word salad of legalese), I’m just trying to rephrase it a little more simply to get it through my wooden braincase, into that grey gelatin stuff I call a brain.
part of my confusion is the context of the rant. What was she charged with? What was the case the rant is responding to? Was her son the original defendant that she so motherly tried to defend which was thrown out cuz she not his lawyer? Did the original suit call him a “baby”, but now he is a “beautiful boy” no longer a “baby”? What is his actual age, no more complementary metaphors, Tamah. I mean, what triggered this rant?!?!
Meth
Not even once.
@ John Pieret #11
Thanks for the background; where on Earth did you get that?
Wow. So she’s quite obviously one of these “Sovereign Citizen” wackjobs, she owns all the stuff a ‘prepper would own, thinks it’s fine to keep a baby in a car with some loaded guns, and was arrested for apparently trying to spring her violent and, looking at the charges, abusive husband? Wow.
Thumper:
I went to the court’s site and got the order (I’m a lawyer in real life).
Somehow she doesn’t seem happy.
Here’s some more from the order for your enjoyment:
In her amended complaint, Plaintiff first makes nonsensical statements regarding her status under the “organic natural Constitution of the REPUBLIC,” [Doc. 3 at 3], appearing to assert that she is not a citizen of any nation or possibly that she is a citizen of the “territory” of Florida. It is not clear. Also not clear is the reason that Plaintiff deemed this information to be relevant to her purported causes of action.
Plaintiff next asserts that Mr. Clark, was wrongfully arrested, convicted, imprisoned, and placed into involuntary servitude all while suffering in “extreme, harsh conditions that are inhuman and degrading.” [Doc. 3 at 12], Plaintiff then details how her own rights were violated (as were the rights of her child) when she was repeatedly arrested. Plaintiff names a vast array of government officials as Defendants and asserts claims under various provisions of the United Nations Charter and the Constitution, and seeks both injunctive and compensatory relief.
As noted, Plaintiff proceeding pro se cannot pursue claims brought on behalf of Mr. Clark and her child. Even if she could, all of those claims, along with the claims that she brought on her own behalf, are subject to dismissal. There is no cause of action in this Court under any document published by the United Nations.
You can only represent yourself pro se because otherwise you’d be practicing law without a license.
Pianoman @ 14:
I think “castrated” was hitting below the belt
I bet there’s a grounds for charges of “threatening to kill” or something in that screed. Didn’t anyone ever tell her not to poke the legal system?
She’s from Pensacola, so…you know. Kent Hovind territory.
Fun fact: At one time, Pensacola had the highest ratio of churches per capita in the US.
And I too was deeply amused by her claims of elementary school recruitment attempts by the CIA and FBI and her obvious pride in her extensive study of both world history and American jurisprudence. No possible way that she could have missed a few things or glossed over anything important, no sir!
The “ha, ha, you did just what I expected you to and so played right into my hands!” bit was definitely the cherry on this bullshit taco.
She’s just mad because was told of a Legal System Breaking Glitch that she could trigger by saying the judge’s name backwards and banishing them to Realm of Lost Legislation. Amazingly, it didn’t work. Hopefully all those lessons in the Citizen’s Guild of Sovereignty cost only currency that is just as real and useable as the advice they give.
anteprepro @ 7:
She recognizes that there are several definitions of the United States of America. There’s one that covers the collection of states that gathered together under the original (organic) Constitution whereby everyone remained a citizen of their own state and the federal government had no power to tax their income. Then there’s the United States of America that covers all non-state territories as empowered by the 14th Amendment to that Constitution, which does not include her as a citizen of Florida; and it is her contention that only those people in non-state territories that can be taxed by the federal government as the 16th Amendment referred to the authority granted by the 14th Amendment.
So the judge is a disgrace to the collection of states for broadening the power of the federal government to tax non-state citizens onto state citizens, a violation of her rights.
She has a website: http://tamahjadaclark.com/
And here’s the about page: http://tamahjadaclark.com/about/
there is no way I am going to try and understand how she came to her understanding of government or history but she (and others) seem to be living in or advocating for some alternative reality I am just not aware of existing.
maybe the charges of possession of weed for sale was incorrect it seems more likely given the events following the arrest and conviction that it must have been for personal consumption.
uncle frogy
Ah, another person who doesn’t understand context.
You have a judge you want a favorable ruling from. Is it good tactics to insult the judge? Especially since such a letter is prima facie evidence for contempt of court. Which can take death threats very seriously, and is not considered free speech within the context of threatening the courts or the judges therein.
What has PZ done to show that he’s not promoting an agenda of acceptance of minorities? What does “violent imagery” have to do with that agenda? And why is “empathy for your fellow human beings” more important when you’re expecting empathy for people in positions of power relative to minorities than when you’re a minority?
Quotes and links, please.
So now Kirbmarc is trying to derail an unrelated thread. I don’t think they are going to be long for this blog. The troll fu is too weak.
John Pieret (@8,11,18,20)
Is there a way for non-lawyers to see the decision? Or are we obliged to pay to use the intertubes to get to it? (The ‘Pacer’ system…)
I had assumed the original complaint was about taxes – but holy crap – that’s a lot of violent crime right there! (in 11)
Sovereign Citizen/States’ Rights fanatic, with delusions of grandeur? Who thinks that “conquering this land” (presumably referring to genocide and treaty-breaking land seizure) conferred speshul rights on those “conquerors'” descendants, but seems unaware that the Confederacy lost, taking the emphasis on the state’s rights with it? Who clearly doesn’t know what a hoe is?
A whole month?!?
*shaking head in amazement*
–
Kirbmarc is a slymepitter who ironically turns up in the recently linked examples of the slymepitters disgusting behaviour.
Kirbmarc, employing ‘colorful language’ whilst making an argument is one thing. Employing ‘colorful language’ whilst completely and utterly failing to even come close to making a cogent, coherent argument is quite another, especially when you’re doing it on a legal document. The posters on FTB do the former, by and large. Tamah Jada Clark is doing the latter.
Which you show a lack of empathy for with your evidenceless opinions. Don’t worry, I won’t take you seriously until you learn to link to third party evidence to back up your claims….Nobody here is holding their breath for that to happen. We’re still waiting to see the evidence that RW was wrong to say “guys, don’t do that”. It isn’t there. Just your evidenceless and paranoid views.
zenlike: And I just gave them the benefit of the doubt of just assuming that they were clueless apologist for Pit behavior. Go figure that there are very few of such people who aren’t themselves pitters. Ho hum.
Hard to argue with that astute legal reasoning.
Here’s another “Sovereign Citizen” spewing nonsense:
Link
Donald Trump, a guy who recently rented space for his presidential campaign headquarters, said some more stupid stuff:
Link
Yeah, I’m sure President Obama is importing South American drug lords to bolster the ranks of the Democratic Party. /sarcasm
Mr. Trump may have forgotten Mitt Romney’s real ties to South American drug lords, to Salvadoran death squads, and to their money.
People’s World link
Huffington Post link
Politico link
Considering that what we have here may be another case of Republican projection of their own misdeeds/tactics onto the Democratic Party, maybe someone should investigate Trump’s connections to South American drug lords.
Whoops. Apologies for posting comment 41 in the wrong thread.
But The One Percent of the US is still over 3 million people. That sounds like some serious chafing… O.O
Oh dear.
I see we’re having a slyme infestation.
Cleanup on aisle 3 please.
I’ve yet to see this whine from anyone who would recognize actual violent imagery if it left bloody tooth marks on their ass.
More “Sovereign Citizen” activity, this time in Oregon.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bundy-sugar-pine-mine-blm
Btw, the choice snippets zenlike refers to about the current pitter in our midst, from Jadehawk’s compilation, were the following two items:
– Joking about Miri being his “mistress” in response to someone saying she was “off her meds”.
– Joking about Brianna Wu, a cis female (unless Wikipedia is a liar), cutting off “xir penis”.
So, yeah. Fuck off, kirbmarc.
felicis @ 33:
I got it through Pacer. I did a Google but didn’t find it on the web. I gave most of the interesting parts of the order at #11 and #20 (it is only 3 pages long and double-spaced). The judge ruled that the only possible action she had was under the Federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that the statute of limitations was 2 years and that she didn’t file in time and therefore dismissed it.
Kirbmarc @47:
The people who lost their shit were the whiny assholes who took issue with “guys don’t do that”. Were it not for *them*, there would have been no ‘Elevatorgate’. You and your ilk blew the situation way out of proportion.
Your side of the Rift continues to take responsibility for that.
Oh, and if people don’t want to be called (clutch those pearls again) misogynists, then they should stop acting in ways that misogynists do. But do go on whining about how awful it is to call someone a misogynist.
From Caine’s links, it would seem that Clark is all about Revolutionary Intellectualism™. The amazing part is that I didn’t add the ™ symbol.
—
For varying definitions of “routinely” I’m sure.
Honestly, when y’all keep using the same examples, over and over again,* you just keep looking sillier and sillier. Considering FTB should be routinely generating new examples, your examples ought to be less static.
*It’s been, what, years now?
I thought these kooks didn’t accept the UN as a legitimate authority.
One throw away comment in a five minute talk. Video exists. You lie and bullshit about it being a mountain out of a molehill, and talking at length. You show with prima facie evidence you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter not to be believed without linking to third party evidence. Typical of misogynist fools, who don’t understand that we don’t have to believe your stupid hyperbole and inane evidenceless attempts at thinking.
@Kirbmbarc #28
You forgot to add the remaining bit: and people on FTB after some time concluded that this particular imagery should be abandoned along with a few others.
If I should rank you for dishonesty, I would give you 9 out of 10.
Kirbmarc, #52
It’s all about the context. You didn’t exactly criticize the frames of her glasses. But someone saying she’s overreacting about: first, her own experience, and second, a symptom of a larger problem in the atheism community is indeed acting like a Grand Asshat of the Misogynistic Order.
John Pieret @49 – thanks! I was hoping you might have had some hidden lawerly method, but your summary is enough.
I do wish that all court opinions were freely available for download instead of through a pay-system, but I guess we’ve got what we’ve got…
@Kirbmarc:
Not in legal proceedings. Context applies between opinion offered in a public forum and legal documentation.
No.
This is a lie; she did not complain about it at length. In the original video, her only comment on the incident was to say “guys, don’t do that”. There was no shaming, no naming, and no ranting. All further comment on the matter was in response to commentary on a 5-second sentence.
No one is required to respond to criticism, civil or no. I would not characterize McGraw’s criticism as “civil”; you are mistaken in this.
No, she received actual hate mail. It wasn’t just criticism. Example provided.
That was not an attack. McGraw’s statements showed she was ignorant of feminism and she used standard misogynist arguments. Thus, the appellation applies.
1. Reasonable position? Incorrect. Dawkins committed a logical fallacy of relative privation. Most unskeptical of him.
2. It is not immature to personally boycott an individual. Boycotting is a part of free speech; it is authoritarian to criticize a free speech action.
Kirbmarc is a slymer, as anyone can tell from his derailing, recitation of slymepit myths, and tu quoque bullshit.
BANNED.
@ Kirbmarc
Yup, this is exactly what Tony said. /sarcasm
I especially love how your convenient narrative hand-waves away all of Rebecca’s interaction with this mysterious “hate mail” which just flew out of a vacuum of space for no reason. Nope, she didn’t at all have to grapple with frequent conflation of speaking about the incident with crying rape, hysterics about how she was calling for an end to all flirting at conferences, and certainly no rampant speculation about how elevatorguy was probably autistic while simultaneously maintaining that he was probably made up because she didn’t name a name; she simply could never get over a guy hitting on her in an elevator to the point where a deeply-concerned Dawkins thought a demonstration of the relative privation fallacy might introduce some much-needed perspective.
But I suppose your rank dishonestly is to be lauded because, being the pinnacle of civility that you are, you no made no mention of the usage of porcupines.
Entitlement != awkwardness. With people like Elevator Guy, it’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that they don’t like the answer.
Stop telling this lie. It hurts actual awkward people.
Or is that the point, you piece of shit?
I know the Pitter is banned, but I just wanted to point out that the porcupine meme wasn’t about Person X sticking a rotted porcupine up Person Y’s ass. It was about Person Y sticking a rotted porcupine up Person Y’s own ass.
Also, the Pitters love to whine about ‘die in a fire’ comments, yet the person most often associated with saying it (sorry, I can’t recall the nym of the commenter at the minute) apologized for doing so years ago and has not said anything like that since.
As for the last whine about PZ, well, it’s completely taken out of some very important context.
You gotta love how Pitters barge in playing dumb, as if they had just heard of this whole kerfuffle and just need a little more clarifications on some issues they totally just heard of. Or maybe I am being too charitable, in supplying them with a manufactured excuse for why their arguments and distortions haven’t changed in about, what is, four fucking years.
I would say you are charitable to a fault; he wasn’t JAQing, he was telling how it was, dropping truth bombs, and introducing an alternate viewpoint to the Pharyngulan hive mind echo chamber of the Borg Collective.
Although, by Nugent’s standards, such charity is a cornerstone of robust debate.
Well, they’ve got to go with what they’re good at.
First: her publication company is named Sophisticated Language
Second:
Whack. A. Loon.
@John Pieret #20
I figured. Interestingly enough, in British Columbia it’s **taking money** to represent someone else that’s (usually) the crucial bit. I was surprised at that, but young children or people with disabilities (etc.) are sometimes represented by family members (etc.) without monetary exchange, and in certain low-consequence proceedings it makes sense to allow that.
Taking money isn’t always the crucial factor, however. In certain federal tribunals, federal law trumps a provincial Law Society’s regulations of the legal practice. In those cases, one can find certain of the tribunals to be constituted under laws that specify that one or more parties (usually it’s a single-party tribunal, like an immigration court) can employ their choice of “advocate”. It turns out that this advocate need not be a lawyer. Sometimes one’s advocate is merely helping with communication, but in other circumstances they really are doing legal work, and in this particular setting they can do so for someone else AND get paid for it AND have no Canadian law license.
It was originally based on a case where an Indian lawyer, having immigrated, now wished to help other Indians immigrating to Canada. The lawyer, a man, had no Canadian training or law license, but had studied law in English and of course Canada and India both inherited quite a bit of law from a common source. Combined with his personal experiences in India, in the Indian-Candian communities, and in the legal immigration process, the court was loath to say he couldn’t be hired by those who wanted to hire him as their advocate, given the lack of precise definition of the term.
Things might have come out differently if the first person to challenge the Law Society’s ability to regulate actions before a federal tribunal had been an obvious con artist, but the court was sympathetic to a man of his skills and experience. Having proven that “advocate” in this context didn’t mean “lawyer”, the rest of his argument was received well by the court and his conviction for practicing without a license was overturned and the precedent stuck.
Anyway, it’s an interesting bit of legal detail – who is “practicing law” is even up for grabs among lawyers.
From the screed:
Antebellum South, yay!
Must be tough to be a victim of everything. At least maybe she can tap into that secret bank account “Sovereign Citizens” are always foaming about.
For non-lawyers and others without PACER subscriptions, a PDF of the dismissal this responded to may be found here. My Google-Fu has failed to turn up the Amended Complaint, but a pseudonymous lawyer with PACER access suggested in another forum “hotbed of crazy” as a characterization of the document.
It all sounds typical “Sovereign Citizen” stuff. For those familiar with Feynman’s classic essay on “Cargo Cult Science”, the notion of examples of “Cargo Cult Law” might raise interest.
I just tried to read her rant and I can’t stop laughing at how she’s using so many coarse words, but uses a cutesy little * in every one of them.
Don’t laugh at her. She might turn nasty.
This right here is why the interns always get the pro ses. Can you imagine writing a bench memo on this for the judge?
grumpyoldfart @71:
Good point.
I *do* live in Pensacola…
Crip Dike @ 67:
That’s interesting. Our immigrations courts require attorneys as representatives but do not provide free ones. That means that many “illegals” have to appear pro se, including young children. There attempts by immigration rights groups, as well as by the government, to correct the problem but, obviously, “illegals” are not a very popular group in the US right now. It’s a disgrace.
What the fuck is she on about?
marinerachel @75:
Sovereign citizen bullsh*t from what it looks like.
Here’s some “Sovereign Citizen” bullshit from Nevada. In this instance, an elected official is the Tea Partier/Sovereign Citizen:
Bundy is one of the more infamous Sovereign Citizens living in Nevada.
Salon link
The bit about forcing the federal government to get permission from county councils before using public land — that’s the Sovereign Citizen red meat.
Many Sovereign Citizens believe the county is the largest legitimate unit of government and county sheriffs to be the highest legal officer allowed under the Constitution. Ignore the fact that counties and sheriffs aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.
Her website has ‘TM’ on every other word – it’s amusing. Just for fun I checked the USPTO database – you guessed it, none of those are actual trademarks.
MS. Clark is indeed one of the many flavors of sovereign citizens. One thing they have in common is the belief that the US government is a sham. And yet to a man, or woman, they think that if they say this out loud, use the right terminology, and sometimes the magical punctuation, that this sham government will admit it, stop what they’re doing (usually trying to collect taxes or prosecute gun charges), and go away.
.
Like religious people of all sorts, they have a mystifyingly bad understanding of how people work.
“You are not my legitimate king, Atilla!”
“I’m not?”
“No, see here – a typo in the so-called laws you wrote for us!”
“Oh, yeah, guess you’re right, I’ll leave now.”
.
The dangerous ones understand this, but are otherwise equally delusional. They are likely to end up shooting a few deputies or blowing up a building.
@efogoto #25:
But only if you spell them differently — e.g., “United” vs. “united”. Probably should work some colons and apostrophes in there somewhere, too.
@Travis Odom #79:
You mean, none of them are registered trademarks — but that doesn’t mean they’re not legitimate. It’s the difference between ™ and ®. Basically, you can create a trademark just by using it.
One of the best overviews of Sovereign Citizen madness is the ruling from the Canadian Meads v Meads case. The analysis is from a Canadian legal standpoint; however, part of that standpoint is pointing out that some of the Canadian variety are trying in Canadian courts to apply the reality-deprived instructions from American gurus.
@80ish, Kermit Sansoo
The practice of law, like engineering, can be viewed as a secular form of the “Way of Shamanic Mediation” — loosely speaking, use of altered ways of speaking (and associated behavior) in which persons become mediators or channels for the intervention of outside forces, in the hope of resources of imagination, power, and guidance beyond their ordinary mundane reach will be released for solving or dealing with otherwise intractable problems of life.
The difference between Sovereign Citizen “practice” of Law differs from that of (most) actual-admitted-to-the-bar lawyers is that the legal theories of the latter adjust based on actual outcomes of legal experiments — that is, lawyers (like engineers) are evidence-based empiricists.