11/06/2022
In this episode of strange logic, we’re going to talk about Darrell Brooks, and why he doesn’t know how to do things with words. We’re going to talk about performative utterances.
Citations:
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Martino Fine Books, 2018. Buy Here!
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Penguin, 1985. Buy Here!
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lwbU7OkzsACVDaWV8mbQNA7UhbHi6OVl/view?usp=sharing
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
We’re going to talk about Darrell Brooks and why he doesn’t know how to do things with words. Or, more specifically, how he doesn’t know how to make things happen with words.
I’m not just talking about statements describing something; these statements do things. We call these performative utterances, because in making the utterance something is performed. The best example of performative utterances is the justice system. Everything is being kept on the record from this day to presumably the end of all days. Saying guilty/not guilty, objection, overruled/sustained, is an action that sets things in motion, something happens. If I say “I object”, it is literally me halting the procedures, however briefly, for a judge to rule on the objection. And the judges ruling is ending the halting and continuing the long, cold functioning of the justice system.
Performative utterances only exist within certain contexts though, and only if the person uttering them is being genuine. Used incorrectly or without sincerity makes the utterance not so much false, as completely void.
Back to Darrell Brooks. He is not a genuine person, according to him, but a sovereign individual.
On November 21st, 2021, in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks ran his vehicle through an annual Christmas parade killing 6 people and injuring 60 others. This was following Brooks beating his ex-girlfriend and mother of one of his children for the third time in the previous month. He faced over 70 criminal charges including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide.
Brooks choose to fire his public defenders and represent himself. At the same time, Brooks stated that he was a sovereign citizen, which made the trial both exceedingly frustrating, and strangely enough, exceedingly entertaining.
Sovereign Citizen utterances are called Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments.
While there is no single, coherent, & complete set of Sovereign Citizen beliefs (largely because it is inherently incoherent) there are a couple of general principles that most sovereign citizens have, including Darrell Brooks.
- there is a rejection of court & state authority over an individual because said individual is sovereign and therefore exempt.
- no obligation can be forced onto a sovereign citizen without their express agreement to it. They are immune from all obligations.
- a single person has two legal aspects, or can be split into two legal entities. This is known as the strawman argument where there is a distinction between a legal person created by the government and a flesh-and-blood individual. Sovereign citizens believe any document that has their name in all capitals, like a birth certificate or some type of judicial document, refers not to their true selves but to this fiction created by the government.
- finally, they believe they can unilaterally bind the state, a state actor, a court, or other persons with a foisted agreement. For instance, they still believe the U.S. Constitution protects their rights (or at least the rights of them as an individual) and protects their rights absolutely, with no limits.
So, basically, sovereign citizens are people that want all the rights that come with society, but none of the responsibilities. And their arguments, are bullshit. They’re pseudo law. Their utterances pretend to exist within the context of the judicial system, but are actually meaningless. Let me explain…
Philosopher J.L. Austin, who first popularized the notion of performative utterances said words only do things in the right context.
“Speaking generally, it is always necessary that the circumstances in which the words agree uttered should be in some way, or ways, appropriate, and it is very commonly necessary that either the speaker or the other persons should also perform certain other actions, whether ‘physical’ or ‘mental’ actions or even acts of uttering further words.” (8)
Yet, even if your utterances aren’t appropriate in court, like Brooks’, the judicial system has the power to determine your utterances in a way which allows the court to proceed.
During Brooks’ trial, he’s repeatedly used sovereign citizen performative utterances in a vain attempt at invalidating his trial, at delaying it, at overwhelming it, at causing a mistrial, and every other tactic under the sun.
No matter how loud or obnoxious or insistent or rude Darrell Brooks is with his utterances, the utterances of the judicial system go back hundreds of years involving hundreds of millions of individuals, and they will not be moved by Darrell Brooks or any sovereign citizen.
Let us remember the famous words of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
“Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues. (188)
The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution. (264)
And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.” (315)
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
