Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sb_747 t1_j6jctbr wrote

Reply to comment by AudibleNod in J&J’s Talc Bankruptcy Case Thrown Out by Appeals Court by L_Cranston_Shadow

> But on the surface, this sounds a lot like the Sovereign Citizen ‘federal personage’ nonsense. Whereby they think they can shift the burdens and debt to this federal citizen and are liberated by being their own sovereign citizen.

That’s so off base it’s hard to even describe you as wrong.

−4

Aazadan t1_j6jecx3 wrote

It’s similar in that they’re both bullshit legal maneuvers, but beyond that it’s definitely quite different.

13

tmoney144 t1_j6jzo5e wrote

They're not at all similar. It's like saying the excuse "the dog ate my homework" and the excuse "my homework was stolen by aliens who think it contains the secret code to unlocking the mystery of the ancient pyramids," are similar because they're both false. One excuse is at least plausible and the other is bat shit crazy nonsense that should get you put in an institution.

−1

Aazadan t1_j6k79sd wrote

I’m trying to figure out which of the two is the plausible one. That corporate fraud is in the customers interest or that sovereign citizens are maybe on to something.

Normally I would solve this via proof by contradiction but they’re both out there.

1

tmoney144 t1_j6k8uu5 wrote

If you honestly think "sovereign citizens are maybe on to something," I would encourage you to seek help before you hurt yourself or someone you care about.

−1

Aazadan t1_j6k93k0 wrote

Where did I say I thought that? I said they’re both crazy theories, to the point I’m not sure how you’re coming up with either being plausible.

1

tmoney144 t1_j6kbcdl wrote

Do you know much about bankruptcy law? What J&J are trying to do is only really shitty because they tried to pull it like 2 months before trial after wasting a bunch of time in discovery. If they had pulled this when they first started getting sued, it probably would have been fine (maybe, after lookinginto it, I feel like they should have to put the whole companyin BK if that'sthe route they want to take). I think a big thing people are missing is that bankruptcy doesn't mean they don't have to pay. They created a shell company, but creating that company came with a promise to pay the liability once it works its way through the courts. They don't just get to skate on the claims by filing for bankruptcy. Here's a better discussion if you're actually interested: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

Again, the 2 situations are not at all the same. What J&J tried had a real basis in law. Sovereign Citizens are lunatics.

−1

PushinPickle t1_j6l7lqj wrote

Having come across a few sovereign citizens, I’d wager all if not most are mentally ill.

1

Aazadan t1_j6mnq84 wrote

Do I know much about bankruptcy law? Not really.

What I do know though, is companies use this strategy, as mentioned before, to escape liability and pay less. That means the victims of their fraud aren't properly compensated. Meaning, that tactic is a system designed to say corporate fraud needs to be protected.

There is no other reason to split off an entity to pay for it other than to limit assets/liability.

0

washington_jefferson t1_j6jkl78 wrote

The whole Sovereign Citizen thing is totally nuts. People get crazy traffic violations, and then proclaim they were “not driving” but merely “traveling” and they have the right to free travel without government interference. I’m sorry, but unless you’re on an Indian reservation or a US military base, you have to follow traffic laws. You can make up your own rules. You are a subject of the United States. If you want to move into the remote jungles in Central or South America and try to do your own thing- good luck!

5

MeatsimPD t1_j6kedie wrote

I mean what can't individuals just invent a fictional new self and offload our debts into the now non-existent old self

1

JcbAzPx t1_j6kiehe wrote

Only corporate people are allowed to do that.

3