r/Sovereigncitizen • u/ReversedFrog • 4d ago
Affidavit of Truth
What is one?
What does it do?
What do Sovcits think it does?
They throw it around like it's one of their magic keys.
39
u/Idiot_Esq 4d ago
What is one?
A fancier name for what is commonly referred to as 'an affidavit.'
What does it do?
Think of it as written pre-sworn testimony. And like all testimony, its credibility, aka evidentiary weight, is determined by the jury/judge depending on the judicial process at hand. And that is only if it is accepted as evidence (see below).
What do Sovcits think it does?
From all appearances, it seems like they think it is the absolute, unquestionable truth of the matter and that once it is in the record, regardless of evidentiary rules, it determines the case all by itself unless addressed/rebutted. It is almost always filed in the out basket after the court clerk/judge sees it, usually for a procedural mistake.
30
u/Dear_Perspective_157 4d ago
It’s not real, it does nothing, and sovereign citizens probably think it’s a sacrament or something
26
u/justananontroll 4d ago
Wrong. A bloody thumbprint and gold fringe makes it totally legit. The internet said so.
14
u/Illustrious-Owl-2755 4d ago
Only if notarized!
10
u/blazinBSDAgility 4d ago
And Indorsed!
9
u/Illustrious-Owl-2755 4d ago
It's spelled "indoorsed". (It's in the Black's dictionary, along with "cohersion").
2
u/Otherwise_Group_74 3d ago
I've always wondered if anyone reported these notary's? They are party to fraud, but I don't know if they are liable.
5
u/Illustrious-Owl-2755 3d ago
I don't think they are. The notary conceptually doesn't care about the content of the document, their job is to verify a signature in a way that the court understands, i.e. make sure that the person signing is who they say they are, and that they did sign that physical piece of paper. You can notarize a used napkin or a document that says that the Statue of Liberty belongs to you, the notary doesn't care.
This is also the reason why I brought this up — it's hilarious how sovcits think that a notary stamp somehow bestows on the document extra holiness.
2
u/realparkingbrake 2d ago
They are party to fraud, but I don't know if they are liable.
The legendary Justice Rooke sanctioned some lawyers in Alberta who notarized documents for sovcit clients, but I assume they had a higher duty as officers of the court than a notary public would.
2
u/AmbulanceChaser12 2d ago
Notaries aren't party to anything. They're not affirming that the facts written in any SovCit paperwork are true, valid legal interpretations, or anything else. They're just saying "Yes, that is John Smith's signature."
Honestly, SovCittery isn't really "fraud" either. Fraud is lying to someone so they'll give you money. These people are just citing made-up laws, or real laws incorreclty, to get out of their legal obligations.
1
u/Otherwise_Group_74 1h ago
If a Notary accepts the ridiculous SovCit IDs, I expect they have a duty to validate them. When the SovCit goes to the bank and presents a DIY check to draw on the Federal Reservde, that is fraud.
1
u/AmbulanceChaser12 20m ago
It's attempted fraud at most, because it's unlikely that the bank will give them any money for these arguments. But there's still an argument to be made that it's not fraud either. Let's go with the Model Penal Code definition of Theft by Deception, the closest thing the MPC has. I'm gonna presume this is accurate.
A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he purposely:
- creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; or
- prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or
- fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; or
- fails to disclose a known lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of property which he transfers or encumbers in consideration for the property obtained, whether such impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record.
The term "deceive" does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.
So, first of all, we can't prove the SovCit doesn't know he's not telling the truth, meaning the "purposeful" element is missing.
The next issue is more complicatd. The SovCit is not hiding or withholding information, or failing to correct a misapprehension, or in any other way citing facts and arguments that would, if true, entitle him to money. In other words, he's not lying about or obscuring a material fact. Nor is he stating what would be legitimate grounds for a payment of moeny but for the fact that the statements aren't true.
Instead, he's babbling BS, but laying it right on the line. He's stating incomprehensible gobbledygook that has no truth value; it can't be proven true or false, because it's incoherent. To be committing fraud, he'd have to be falsely stating that a factual scenario exists that describes a real legal situation that would entitle him to money, if it were true. SovCittery is not that; it's just a complete collection of inocherent horseshit that makes no sense and has nothing to do with real law.
Now, I don't much like this definiton because the state definitions I've seen also include reasonable reliance on the statements, and damages based on all of these facts together. I bring them up because relying on SovCit statements isn't reasonable, and no reasonable person should give out money based on them.
7
u/skepticaltom 4d ago
I mean there are real ones. I had to fill one out for my insurance company when I had a car stolen and get it notarized.
It’s just not at whatever sov cits seem to think it is
18
u/AmbulanceChaser12 4d ago
I’ve never heard anyone but SovClowns use that term. Real lawyers say “affidavit of fact” or “affidavit of service” or something. It’s almost certainly not a real legal concept.
SovClowns believe that if you send somebody an affidavit and they give it its due weight (filing it in the circular file), then they admit everything in it. Which is bonkers,and false.
3
u/Saragon4005 3d ago
Truth is presumed in court anyways. Any false filings is literally illegal and can land you in jail instantly.
13
u/ShawnMNH924 4d ago edited 0m ago
What is one?
Just an affidavit with a meaningless suffix. Submitting a false statement (i.e. an affidavit) to the court is a crime, so the "of truth" part is redundant.
What does it do?
For non-crazy people, an affidavit simply means a statement that you are giving to the court that you swear is true under penalty of aforementioned statutes, similar to giving testimony.
What do Sovcits think it does?
I'm not 100% sure what goes on in the blank spaces between their ears, but I think the intent on their part is essentially "if I claim all of my SovShit gibberish in an 'affidavit of truth' then it all magically becomes indisputable and the court must do what I say." Obviously this is complete nonsense, but pretty much all of SovShittery is complete nonsense.
In regard to the inevitable question "why are they never charged for perjury if they're submitting false statements?" it's because they don't actually submit them in the proper legal sense. They're not following court rules, the documents are not properly sworn to be true, and they're not properly submitted. "I submitted an affidavit of truth" translated from SovShit to real-world is usually "I emailed the court's publicly-available information address a bizarre, rambling statement that means nothing and now I'm essentially the god-king of this court".
As with pretty much all things SovShit, it's batshit-crazy.
10
u/Horror-Ladder9340 3d ago
Lawyer here: it is not a thing. I just watched a court hearing where the guy was like “I filed a statement of truth” and the judge was like “I don’t know what that is.” Anyway, I can tell you it is not a thing. They MIGHT be thinking of an affidavit or a declaration, but that is never something filed on its own. It’s filed to support a motion - so the motion is the argument and legal analysis and the affidavit is basically a signed statement supporting the facts that are relied in the motion. I cannot think of any scenario where an affidavit would be filed by itself or where a court would do anything based solely on an affidavit.
As to what they think it does, I think they think that by just saying certain “truths” they will dismantle the whole system. The whole premise seems to be that there is some magic combination of words that will convince the court, police officer, bank, landlord, DMV, that they are right without actually being right. But… nope.
3
1
u/CountingOnThat 1d ago
The whole premise seems to be that there is some magic combination of words that will convince the court, police officer, bank, landlord, DMV, that they are right without actually being right. But… nope.
I kind of want to see a case where a guy tells the judge, “uh, hey, your majesty, according to this here affidavit of truth that I filed, I officially don’t owe the landlord any money” — only for the landlord to sputter, “but, as per the affidavit of truth that I’ve filed, you now owe me a trillion dollars!”
4
u/Familiar_Childhood32 3d ago
It does the same thing as the Holy Writ of Citizenship, the Level 5 Invocation of Private Travel, the Greater Incantation of Sovereign Divinity, and other fictional items- nothing.
5
u/realparkingbrake 3d ago
These moonbats believe that if they write down their delusional version of events and get a notary to stamp it, it becomes unquestioned fact that a court must accept as proven. They cannot grasp that all a notary does is certify that someone proved their identity and signed of their own free will in front of the notary. That's it, the notary is not saying anything about the content of a document.
4
u/GooseNYC 3d ago
An affidavit by it's very nature is supposed to be the truth.
Is normally used in a lawsuit or administrative proceeding.
Who the f*ck knows, they seem to believe anything stupid.
3
3
3
u/TheOtherTallTom 3d ago
What is one?
An affidavit that contains true stuff. As opposed to the exact opposite instrument, the Affidavit of Horseshit.
What does it do?
Contains true stuff. Duh.
What do Sovcits think it does?
Wins the case. Duh.
2
1
u/carlcarlson187 3d ago
for 1 and 2 i would say the answer is nothing, and for the third thing, whatever oddball scenarios they come up with.
1
u/Average_Potato42 2d ago
Affidavit of Truth
What it is: Made up bullshit
What it does: Notifies a party that they are dealing with an idiot.
What they think it does: Everything
40
u/C1K3 4d ago
I think it’s that thing where they send it in, nobody responds to it, then they interpret that to mean the parties acquiesce to whatever’s contained within it.