Freeman On The Land

13/12/2011 Freeman on the land - RationalWiki
Freeman on the land

From RationalWiki
Freeman on the land or freeman is a form of pseudolegal woo existing in It's not even
various English-speaking countries. Freemen believe that they can opt out of a good idea
being governed and that legislative acts only apply with consent, as they are a
form of contract. They believe they are only bound by their own bizarre Pseudolaw
version of common law. They will often assert that the law doesn't apply as
they do not consent and do not agree to contract with the state, even going
so far as to believe they have a lawful right to refuse being arrested if they do
not consent. Essentially, they're hilarious and somewhat less threatening
sovereign citizens.
Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of the jurisdiction

of the government via a concept known as "lawful rebellion": that all statute I have a theory,
law is contractual and therefore only applicable if an individual consents to it. which is mine
They believe the only "true" law is their own definition of common law. Other
aspects include insisting that the government is a corporation, an obsession British Constitution Group
Citizen's Rule Book
with maritime law, and calling themselves such things as 'John of the family
Corporate personhood
Smith.'
Crime woo
Federal Reserve
No freeman arguments have ever been recognised in court; some have even
Gold standard (economics)
explicitly ruled that the term "freeman on the land" has no legal
Obama citizenship denial
significance.[1] This won't stop freemen from claiming they work. Peter Hendrickson
Robert Beale
Sovereign citizen
States' rights
Contents The United States as a
Christian nation
1 How it works (or not) Tom Cryer
2 History
v -t-e
3 Common law
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?
4 Legal Person or Straw man title=Template:Pseudolaw&action=edit)
5 Contracts and statutes
6 Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right
7 Lawful rebellion and the Magna Carta
8 Admiralty law and courts
9 Economics and finance
10 Government
11 Birth certificates
12 Freeman failures
13 See also
14 External links
15 Sources
16 Footnotes
rationalwiki.org/…/Freeman_on_the_land 1/13
How it works (or not)

A lot of freeman ideas revolve around bizarre interpretations of entries in Black's Law Dictionary (a favourite
reference for freemen), and inventing or seeing distinctions where there are none to support their beliefs (such as
common vs. statute law, policeman vs police officer, understand vs stand-under, words in CAPITALS having a
different legal meaning to those in lower-case, etc.). There is a lot of pareidolia with words and concepts used to
derive and justify ideas in freeman theory.
Freemen are typically members of the green ink brigade and often indulge in various other conspiracy theories, as
well as strong anti-government and anti-corporate sentiments. Freeman ideas are often used to try to escape tax
and debt repayment by arguing that they are not required to pay tax, or even to argue that borrowed money was
theirs to start with.[2] Freeman ideas are so far out that even arch-crackpot Alex Jones thinks it's quackery
(seriously, see for yourself)[3] and agrees that using them will probably get you sent to jail.
History
"Freeman on the land" ideas inherit several aspects from the older tax protester and sovereign citizen movements in
the US such as Posse Comitatus in the 70s and 80s and the Montana Freemen in the 90s. Ideas such as their
concepts of admiralty law, common law, their obsession with capitalisation of words and various theories on finance
can trace their origins back to almost identical theories from these movements. The freeman movement itself
appears to have originated in Canada with 'Mary Elizabeth: Croft' (sic) and her 2005 book How I clobbered every
bureaucratic cash-confiscatory agency known to man ... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and
Remembering Who You Are[4]. This then evolved in to a movement in Canada with practitioners such as Robert
Menard (who may have actually coined the phrase "Freeman on the land") before transferring over to the UK with
people such as John Harris, Brian Gerrish, the Anti-terrorist and Raymond St Clair. The phrase "Freeman on the
land" itself seems to have originated sometime around mid 2008.[5]
Common law
Freemen have something of an obsession with common law, which typically refers to what is known as case law.
As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law
“ comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security
[rights] of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of
immemorial antiquity, or from the judgements and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and ”
enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of
England.
—Black's law dictionary 6th edition 1991
Freemen use this entry to justify a different definition, one which is heavily reliant on the concept of natural law
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) . They see common law as applicable to everyone or, as they would
claim, applicable to men and women, flesh and blood human beings, but statutory law as dependent on choice, an
offer of contract, only applicable to their person and not enforceable except by consent. Some definitions of the
freeman interpretation of common law are:
"you do not cause harm or loss to another, while you never breach the peace, and never employ
“ any mischief in your promises & agreements ”
—Veronica: of the chapman family" [6]
never harm or causes loss

“ ”
—John Harris
There are only three ways to break the law. Harm another human being, damage someone else's
“ property, use fraud or mischief in your contracts ”
—Robert Menard [7]
What Freemen don't seem to understand is that all law in England is ultimately under the jurisdiction of Parliament
which can revoke, rewrite, amend or consolidate case law/real common law whenever it sees fit. This is the
principle known as Parliamentary sovereignty, where parliament is recognised as the supreme legal authority and
being able therefore to pass or repeal any law it wishes, with the only restriction being that it cannot bind future
parliaments. Parliamentary sovereignty is recognised by the courts as a fundamental feature of the common law in
England and Wales, for example in Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] and Jackson v Attorney General
[2005].
Ultimately, the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose
it. You can argue that the authorities have no jurisdiction over you, and you can choose not to recognise their
authority, but as long as the authorities have force to back up their rules they can enforce sanctions against you.
Freemen would argue that this would be unlawful imprisonment - but at the end of the day you'd still be in jail.
Legal Person or Straw man

See the main article on this topic: Strawman theory
Freemen believe that an individual has two personas. One of them is a physical, tangible human being, and the other
is their legal person, personality or strawman. A legal fiction which is created when a birth certificate is filed with
what would normally be considered someone's name (eg; JOHN SMITH), capitalization being a particular
obsession. Freemen believe that all legal actions, restrictions and statutes can only be applicable to their legal
personality, and that by separating themselves from their legal person, they can free themselves of having to abide
by statute laws they don't like (or acts, as they would insist they are not laws).[8] This is typically done by using a
slightly different spelling of their name, usually 'John of the family Smith' (variations include 'John of Smith' or even
'John;Smith') and/or entering in to what is referred to as Lawful Rebellion, or by filing a Notice of Understanding
and Intent and Claim of Right. They also believe that use of titles such as Mr/Mrs refer to their legal fiction as
opposed to themselves and will therefore refuse to be identified using them (as this may create joinder). Freemen
believe their birth certificate is their legal person, and will attempt to present it in court when said person is called
for, rather than identifying themselves as that person.
Because of their obsession with admiralty law and all things maritime, freemen believe that their legal person is
required to operate in commerce, or the sea of commerce. It is therefore defined as a vessel or ship in the legal
realm, floating on the sea of commerce. Evidence of this comes in the form of the resemblance between birth and
berth, use of the term birth canal and the fact that courtrooms have docks. All legal action between your person
and others is therefore conducted under admiralty law, mercantile law or commercial law, sometimes referred to as
the law of the sea.
Contracts and statutes

Because of their conception of common law as the only true law, freemen believe that any laws made by the
government are not 'laws', but are instead invitations to contract, or 'acts', giving rise to the freeman maxim of 'Acts
nor laws'. They do not believe that statute law applies without an individual's consent, and that we are just
conditioned and deceived by the authorities to believe that they do. Freemen claim that statutes can have the force
of law as a binding contract under the correct conditions.
Freemen believe that the government has to establish what they refer to as joinder which means they have to get
you to voluntarily establish your identity as your legal person. When they ask you whether you are 'John Smith' and
you confirm that you are then you are establishing joinder. You have then connected your physical and human
persons. The next step is to obtain consent. Statutes are seen as invitations to enter a contract, which are only
legally enforceable if one enters into the contract consensually. If one does not enter in to a contract then statute
laws are not applicable. Freemen believe that the government is therefore constantly trying to trick people into
entering into a contract with them. They often return bills, notices, summons and so on with the message "No
contract - return to sender".
Central to this idea is the concept of legalese, referred to as the language of the law society. Freemen invent several
distinctions to make reality fit their interpretation. Notices (for example those which are issued by courts, the police
or some government agencies) are supposedly written in legalese. Legalese is designed to look like English by using
English words but is, in fact not English. Dun dun dun. For instance, they state that the word 'must', in legalese, is
synonymous with 'may' (and vice-versa). 'Summons' means 'invitation', 'demand' means 'offer' and 'understand' (as
in 'do you understand?') means 'stand under', as in 'do you stand under these words', i.e., accept the terms of our
contract.[8] All these terms are sneaky ways of getting you to contract with the government without you realising.
No source is provided for this use of language, but it is a convenient way of getting reality to fit a delusion. After all,
if one were to start claiming that somebody says one thing but actually mean something completely different, then
one can start to claim almost anything.
See here for an example of how they redefine a leaflet about the UK TV licence [1]
(http://www.tpuc.org/node/609) .
Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right

A 'Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right' is a made up legal document freemen use in an attempt to
declare sovereignty. They will sign such a document, sometimes with a notary, and then send it to the Queen and
sometimes various other figures such as the prime minister and police chiefs. It usually consists of a series of lines
beginning 'Whereas it is my understanding' followed by an assertion which is usually untrue or completely illogical.
Various parts will state their bizarre interpretation of the law and their understanding that they do not consent to it.
This is then followed by what is known as a 'Fee schedule' or 'Penalty schedules' which lists a series of acts and
associated penalties the freeman will attempt to levy against the government for perceived transgressions. For
instance, if the state incarcerates a freeman against their will then will attempt to charge the state a fee for this action;
see here for an example of one (http://www.fmotl.com/NoticeOfUnderstanding.htm) . They typically begin as
follows
I, Veronica: of the Chapman family, hereinafter known as Veronica: Chapman, a flesh and blood
“ human being in possession of a sovereign and individual spirit, a living soul, do hereby make Oath
and state the following is My Truth and My Law:
Whereas it is my understanding that in terms of earthly existence there is no species more supreme
than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and
Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and
therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any
fair, just and reasonable context, and
Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must in practice derive from the
aforesaid axioms, and
Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as
'people', and
Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-
minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate,
determine and act for a common goal, and
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and
Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act
upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and
Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any
society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and
Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any
society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and
Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common

Law jurisdiction, and
Whereas I Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-land, and
Whereas it is my understanding that all authority possessed by elected representatives must

inherently derive from those who elect said representation, and Whereas it is my understanding that
if I have the right to empower representation by casting a vote then I am empowered to represent
myself, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the right of empowerment does not derive from any
government otherwise it would be possible for a government to revoke it, and
Whereas it is my understanding that if the right to empower representation were revoked then no
representation would thereafter be possible, and
Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in the United
Kingdom is a representative one, and ... ”
Lawful rebellion and the Magna Carta
Lawful rebellion is another concept in British freeman theory holding that one can lawfully choose to cease abiding
the laws, rules and statutes of a country by simply opting out of society. Lawful rebellion is often an alternative to
the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right method, although they are sometimes used together.
Freemen believe that they can withdraw their consent to be governed and can sacrifice ones legal person by
entering into lawful rebellion and they will no longer be bound or affected by any legislative statutes. This claim
stems from clause 61 of the Magna Carta:
Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the
“ quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous
that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom,
whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to
be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present
Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be
at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this
security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four
barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression
before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have
corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not
have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our
justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the
rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the
community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our
castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they
deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when
redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the
country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of
all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we
publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone
to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling
to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command
compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall
have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent
the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall
choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same
way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five
barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them,
after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those
present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty
five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all
that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing
from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be
revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we
shall never use it personally or by another.
”
—Magna Carta 1215
Clause 61 of the Magna Carta is a historically and constitutionally significant clause. It gave 25 barons the right to
meet and overrule the will of the king and seize his assets, essentially usurping his authority, if this was considered
necessary. This was one of the first times that there had been any kind of restriction on a king's power from below.
It could be argued as being one of the first checks and balances and the first step toward the move for constitutional
government. Clause 61 was only in effect for 3 months as King John later renounced it and Pope Innocent III
released King John from his oath to obey it. This led to a civil war between the king and his barons known as the
1st Baron's War.
Freemen claim that clause 61 allows them to cease obeying the state. This sometimes involves sending an affidavit
direct to the Queen declaring ones intent to become a freeman and removing their consent to be governed. Some
freemen believe that the Queen represents the highest authority in the land as the sovereign but that she derives her
authority from we the people. This then makes them sovereign in such that there is no higher authority then
themselves. The actual text of Magna Carta's clause 61 explicitly refers to the King and the Barons (25 of them
being required to invoke the clause), nowhere is there any mention of the people free or otherwise (nor would there
be given the feudal system in place at the time). The phrase 'Lawful Rebellion' doesn't appear anywhere in it, being
an invention of freeman mythology.
Freemen claim that Magna Carta cannot be repealed but this simply is not true. Aside from the fact it was almost
instantly repealed, it was itself replaced by the Magna Carta of 1297 passed by the later Edward I in return for new
taxes. It is this 1297 version (without any clause 61 or anything resembling it) which is now in force although all but
three sections of it have in turn been repealed. Admittedly it took until 1829 until a single clause was repealed but
by 1969 all but sections 1 (freedom of the church), 9 (freedom of the city of London) and 29 (right to due process)
had been repealed or superseded. This should be considered a good thing as Magna Carta by today's standards
cannot be considered to be the most progressive of documents. Clause 54 (1215) for instance prevented women
from giving evidence "No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone
except her husband".
Admiralty law and courts

Freemen see a distinction between what they call common law and statute law, which they refer to as admiralty law
or 'law of the sea', sometimes also known as maritime law or the universal commercial code. Through a stunning
misunderstanding of etymology, they see admiralty law as being the law of commerce, the law of ownerShip,
citizenSHIP, and indeed anything else ending in ship. They see evidence of this in various nautical sounding terms
used in court, such as dock, birth (berth) certificate, -ship suffixes, and any other fancy word with a vaguely naval
13/12/2011
used in court, Freeman on-ship
such as dock, birth (berth) certificate, the land - RationalWiki
suffixes, and any other fancy word with a vaguely naval
sound. Freemen will take this further by using further nautical terms, referring to the court as a ship, its occupants as
passengers and claming that anyone leaving are men overboard. Consequently their legal arguments tend to have a
hilarious nautical theme.
Freemen see courts as being a place of business intended to make profit for the government corporation. They
sometimes refer to these courts de facto courts. When they receive a summons to appear as court they insist that
this is not summons but is in fact an invitation to their place of business to discuss the matter at hand. When one
initially enters a court they are operating under admiralty law rather than their version of common law. American
Freemen on the land will sometimes try to argue that if the flag in the court has a gold fringe, this signifies that it is an
Admiralty court. British courts tend not to have flags of any type, so the claim has largely failed to cross the
Atlantic. Believing they are operating under admiralty law, freemen will try claim common law jurisdiction by stating
'do you have a claim against me, which supposedly removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and
turns the court into a common law court, forcing the court to proceed according to their version of common law.
Any cooperation with the court is seen as accepting their terms of contract, and freemen will therefore refuse to do
anything asked of them. When asked to stand or approach the bench, they will often refuse to do so, or only do so
as long as 'their inalienable god given rights remain intact', in order to prevent them from entering a contract.
Freemen will also attempt to 'put the judge on their oath' to force them to to act in accordance with common law,
which entails asking to see evidence of this oath. Judges typically give short shrift to this kind of request, and either
adjourn the hearing or threaten to accuse the Freeman of contempt of court. The freemen might then ask whether
the judge means civil or criminal contempt; this is because freemen believe that civil contempt would come under
admiralty law, and therefore require a consensual contract, and criminal contempt would require a victim. When
Judges leave the courtroom, Freemen will attempt to claim common law authority and then attempt to dismiss the
charges themselves, often with a cry of "ship abandoned" or "man overboard".[9][10]
Freemen believe that that a victim must exist for a common law crime to have been committed. One of their
attempts at defence will be to demand to see evidence of a victim. They may also complain that the trial is unfair
because the judge and prosecution are on the same team, both being employed by the state. If a Freeman has had
their property confiscated, they will request that it be returned to them. None of these defences ever get them
anywhere but they persist in using them anyway. Silly buggers.
Freemen will never accept legal representation, as to do so might entail contracting with the state. They also believe
that professional lawyers and solicitors owe a duty to the crown before them due to their oath, and therefore cannot
represent them effectively. Professional lawyers are also all part of the evil legal system and therefore not to be
trusted.
Other legal woo attempted by Freemen include serving their own papers on courts and the police and even
attempting to send invoices (or, as they refer to them, fee schedules) to courts and the police.
Court appearances are by far the most hysterical part of the freeman delusion as various youtube videos will attest.
Watching freemen trying to apply their delusions to reality is like watching a video of a slow motion train wreck on
top of which someone has dubbed some delusional gibberish. The fact that freemen put these videos—filmed
illegally in the UK—on Youtube at all suggests cognitive dissonance since they typically make the protagonist look
very foolish. Techniques used to overcome the manifest failure of freeman logic in court include editing out key
moments in favour of voiceovers and mistaking adjournments for acquittals.
Economics and finance

Freemen have some bizarre ideas dating back to the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666. They claim that this act declared
all English citizens dead and lost beyond the seas unless they objected within seven years of their birth, after which
they would be declared dead without reasonable doubt. The state would then claim all the property of its citizens in
trust. The full text of the act can be read here (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11|) courtesy of the
national archives. It's very short and reads as follows;
Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether
“ they are alive or dead.
Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more
life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often
happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have
gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and
Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof
such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many
yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and
Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt
upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the
same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.
”
—Cestui Que Vie Act, 1666
The true intent of this act is obvious: it states that anyone lost at sea for more than seven years will be declared
legally dead. How anyone can arrive at a different conclusion is bizarre.
Freemen believe that the UK and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and therefore is under admiralty law.
Since the abolition of the gold standard in 1917, UK currency is now backed not by gold but rather by the people,
or rather the legal fiction of their persons. They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation.
Government
Freemen are typically strongly anti-government and believe that the government is a corporation (number
uc2279443). The proof is that the government and various parts of it are listed on the website of credit agency
'Dunn and Bradstreets' as having a credit record. Any other evidence that runs contrary to this view is commonly
viewed as wrong, lies, deception, etc... Only evidence which supports this view is accepted as correct, in a similar
way to how conspiracy theorists often treat evidence that runs contradictory to their viewpoints.
In reality any entity be that corporation, government, person/human, charity or whatever that borrows money or
works on credit will need a credit record so that creditors can assess the risk of lending. Credit agencies are also
not the arbiters of what is and isn't a corporation. I could set up a credit rating organisation tomorrow and say that
such and such is a corporation, but it wouldn't make it so. The idiosyncrasies of how a credit rating organisation's
website list entities should not be taken as proof of outrageous claims.
Freemen also claim that when we vote we are in fact electing directors of a company for profit, that MPs are
directors and the voters are employees of the corporation. Although the UK government (and nearly all western
governments) has in fact been running at a deficit pretty much constantly since the war. Who is supposed to get the
profit from this corporation is unclear. MPs get a fixed standard salary which is way below an equivalent job in the
private sector.
private sector.
Birth certificates
There are three main beliefs about birth certificates in freemen mythology
The government uses them to create your strawman and legal person to which all your legal responsibilities,
debts and liabilities belong.[8]
As a form of registration they transfer ownership of an individual to the state. This is what allows the state to
seize your children if you don't play by their rules.[8]
They are financial instruments or birth tracking bonds (aka live birth bonds) that are sold by the government
and then traded on the sea of international commerce, using you as security.
According to freeman woo since the abolition of the gold standard the government uses its own citizenry and their
birth certificate bonds to secure the value of its fiat currency. It's claimed that the value of an individuals bond may
reach into the millions. This can supposedly be proved by entering the numbers on ones birth certificate in to various
stock tracking sites to show the current value of ones bond on the market. Although in reality any 'bonds' found
matching these numbers will be by complete coincidence of the numbers being the same as actual financial
instruments. Freemen believe that one can supposedly access the money represented by ones own bond though
numerous pseudolegal methods and by filing various forms with government agencies. There are plenty of conmen,
fraudsters and snake oil salesmen selling various methods and secrets on how to achieve this to gullible fools.
Naturally none have ever been shown to work (as if this even needed to be stated!). The value of ones birth
certificate bond can also supposedly be used to discharge ones debts and financial liabilities through a process
known as 'acceptance for value' or 'A4V'. Without the freeman having to gain direct access to the funds himself of
course. The UK Treasury has stated that the existence of these bonds, as well as various other freeman financial
concepts are myths.[11]
Freeman failures
Despite the numerous attempts to use freeman legal woo and their obvious failures freemen will always insist that
they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.
Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons

(http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232246.html) Full panoply of Freeman
delusion on display here - down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: Conviction,
and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal - “I can’t accept a bail bond from
someone whose signature can’t be verified,” [the Judge] said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis (http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow/Freemen-are-
told-they-will.6676742.jp) they claim to be freemen on the land but the courts state that they have "no
personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution" and that there was "no legal
significance" to the term 'freeman on the land' and that they would be tried anyway.
Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested
(http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_court_case_posted_on_youtube_1_751533) [2]
(http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_man_s_dramatic_stand_off_over_unpaid_council_tax_1_745837)
after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent but gets a suspended 3 month jail
sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
Freeman 'Brian-arthur: alexander' tries to get out of speeding
(http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20101224/KAMLOOPS0101/312249983/-
(http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20101224/KAMLOOPS0101/312249983/-
1/KAMLOOPS01/kamloops-freeman-says-laws-do-not-apply-to-him) by telling a judge the law doesn't
apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his
freeman shenanigans.
Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate.
(http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/mike-rasila/) He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he
isn't an employee of the 'corporation of Canada'. It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A
judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww-
rAeNElj4&feature=player_embedded) Despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not
surprisingly it fails and they take him in to custody anyway
Darren Pollard gets arrested again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5TeBpsOTE4&feature=related)
after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was 'Darren of the family Pollard' and not the
legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for
A Freewoman user 'girlgye' recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance
and having her 'conveyance' impounded. (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?
t=80419&page=5) This inspite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP
Styal women's prison for contempt when she attempted to defend herself using more freeman woo.[12]
Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTicurNEEOQ) for driving a
motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500
Canadian Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlcT-3niVes) for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial
commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since
attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=o6IS-edTEH4&feature=related)
James-Michael: Tesi arrested. (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/21/3238352/man-in-sovereign-
citizen-group.html) After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo
documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer
pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child
custody proceedings. (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html) She was sentenced to
nine months for contempt.
See also
Social contract
British Constitution Group
Tax protester
External links
THE PEOPLE'S UNITED COMMUNITY (http://www.tpuc.org/)
fmotl.com (http://www.fmotl.com/)
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP (http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/)
Raymond St Clair Freeman on the land (http://www.raymondstclair.com/)
Freeman on the land forum on the David Icke website (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?
Freeman on the land forum on the David Icke website (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?
f=60)
The Freeman Movement and England (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155358) , a major thread
on the James Randi Education Foundation forums discussing and debunking freeman ideas
Examples of Freeman success stories (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177447) , another fun
thread at the JREF forums
Sources
John Harris Talking About 'Life' at Truthjuice 17th Feb 2010 (http://www.tpuc.org/content/john-harris-
talking-about-life-truthjuice-)
John Harris - 'It's an illusion' talk at the Stoke 'Lawful Rebellion' Conference
(http://www.tpuc.org/node/558) [13]
John Harris - It's an illusion 2, at London (http://www.tpuc.org/content/john-harris-its-illusion-2-london)
Robert Menard Freeman On The Land (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mtoFqh2PTUk&feature=player_embedded)
Footnotes
1. ↑ http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow/Freemen-are-told-they-will.6676742.jp 'Freemen' are told they will be
tried
2. ↑ Section 16 - See here for how the concept of fractional reserve banking in perverted to justify this claim
(http://www.fmotl.com/Fundamentals.htm#BM16)
3. ↑ Alex Jones calls freeman ideas 'Quackery' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPH5ikNKaVE)
4. ↑ How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash-confiscatory agency known to man ... a Spiritual Economics
Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are
(http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf) She actually lists David Icke as a source in
this book
5. ↑ Google group search (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&saf) Google
group's earliest record of its usage seems to be June 2008
6. ↑ definition of common law (http://www.fmotl.com/)
7. ↑ Robert Menard introduces Freeman ideas including a definition of common law
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtoFqh2PTUk&feature=player_embedded)
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Meet your Strawman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko) (YouTube)
9. ↑ Freeman In Gloucester Court 29th Jan 2010 Part 1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU7G6XIMt2Q)
10. ↑ ENGLISH FREEMAN IN COURT PART 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=SWb_89i6vmk&feature=related)
11. ↑ [http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/29165/response/76103/attach/2/foi%20gol.pdf Freedom of
information request regarding Birth Tracking Bonds etc...
12. ↑ http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=84422
13. ↑ At 38:04 in this video John Harris cites Baby P as an example when talking about social services taking
peoples children away from them. Baby P was a case in the UK of a child who died at the hands of his
mother and her boyfriend. Social services and the various other agencies involved were widely criticised for
failing to take the child in to care and not identifying the risk to the child. Not only is it intellectually
dishonest to cite an emotive real life example that actually contradicts your argument, to misrepresent a tragic
case like this in such a way is downright offensive.
case like this in such a way is downright offensive.
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land"
Categories: Bronze-level articles | Pseudolaw | Extreme wingnuttery
This page was last modified on 22 November 2011, at 00:07.

This page has been accessed 38,280 times.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
For concerns on copyright infringement please see: RationalWiki:Copyright violations
Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
13/12/2011 Strawman theory - RationalWiki
Strawman theory
From RationalWiki
Not to be confused with the logical fallacy Straw man. It's not even
a good idea
Strawman theory (Also called the Strawman illusion) is a pseudolegal
theory prevalent in various movements such as sovereign citizen, tax Pseudolaw
protestor, freeman on the land, the redemption movement and various "get
out of debt free" scams.
The theory holds that an individual has two personas, one of themselves as a
real flesh and blood human being and the other, a separate legal personality
or person (usually written in CAPITALS) who is the "strawman". The idea is
that an individual’s debts, liabilities, taxes and legal responsibilities belong to
the strawman rather than the physical individual themselves, conveniently I have a theory,
allowing one to escape their debts and responsibilities.[1] which is mine
Strawman theory should not be confused with the actual legal concept of a British Constitution Group
Citizen's Rule Book
strawperson, with which it only bears a tenuous similarity, or with the logical
David Wynn Miller
fallacy known as a straw man argument.
Federal Reserve
Flat tax
The strawman theory is recognised in law, but only as a scam: the FBI
Freeman on the land
considers anyone promoting it a likely fraudster,[2] and the IRS considers it a Gold standard (economics)
frivolous argument that will get you a $5000 fine if you use it on your tax Militia movement
return.[3] Obama citizenship denial
Peter Hendrickson
Posse Comitatus
(organization)
Contents Pseudolaw
Tax protester
1 History
v -t-e
2 Theory (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?
3 Commerce title=Template:Pseudolaw&action=edit)
4 Debunking
5 See also
6 References
History
Strawman theory traces its origins to the ancient Roman legal practice of capitis deminutio ("decrease of head"), a
term used in Roman trials for the extinguishment of a person's former legal capacity. Capitis deminutio minima
meant a person ceased to belong to a particular family, without loss of liberty or citizenship. Capitis deminutio
media involved loss of citizenship and family, but not liberty. Capitis deminutio maxima involved loss of family,
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman_theory 1/4
citizenship and liberty (e.g. being made a slave or a prisoner of war).[4]
The term was later revived in the US by the tax protestor and sovereign citizen movements and combined with a
misreading of the definition of person from Black’s law dictionary (an American law dictionary). Strawman theory
takes the term capitis deminutio, misspells it (commonly as "Capitis Diminutio") and claims that capitis diminutio
maxima was represented by an individual’s name being written entirely in capital letters (even though Latin only
had capitals back then). This led to the idea that individuals had a separate legal personality now called a
"strawman", represented in capitals.
Theory
Strawman theory holds that an individual has two personas. One of them is a physical, tangible human being, and
the other as their legal person, personality or strawman, often referred to as a legal fiction. (The term legal fiction
is used by woos as if it were synonymous with intangible rather than with its correct meaning.)
The main use of strawman theory is in escaping and denying debts, liabilities and legal responsibility. Tax protestors,
"commercial redemption" and "get out of debt free" scams claim that one’s debts and taxes are the responsibility of
the strawman and not of the real person, freeing the real person from the need to pay them.
Sovereign citizen's movements and freemen on the land also extend this concept to law and legal responsibilities by
claiming that it is only their strawman that is required to adhere to statutory laws such as paying taxes, having
licences and obeying traffic laws. They also claims that all legal proceedings in courts are taken against your
strawman rather than you as a person and that when one appears in court they appear not as themselves but as
representing their strawman. The justification for this being their false notion that governments cannot force anybody
to do anything against their will. They therefore create a strawman which being their own creation they are free to
boss about at will.
Woos believe that by separating oneself from their strawman or refusing to be identified as their strawman they can
escape their various liabilities and responsibilities such as paying their debts or obeying laws they don't like. This is
typically done by denying they are a person and the same thing as their strawman or by writing their name in various
bizarre ways such as the following:
John of the family Smith

John of Smith
John:Smith
John (commonly known as)
By doing this they are refusing to represent the strawman. In addition to capitals, the use of titles such as Mr and
Mrs are claimed to indicate a reference to a person’s strawman. Surnames are also typically referred to as part of
the legal fiction and advocates will often insist that they don't have a surname but rather a family name.
Some woos believe that the strawman is created by the government when a birth certificate is filed. Woos
sometimes then try and present their birth certificate when their strawman’s name is called for, such as in court.
Commerce
Certain woo mythology holds that the strawman exists as a corporation operating in the commercial realm.
Admiralty law related woo holds that the strawman is a ship, operating on the sea of commerce and that the
strawman is required to operate in commerce. It is therefore defined as a vessel or ship in the legal realm, floating
on the sea of commerce. Evidence of this comes in the form of the resemblance between the words "birth" and
"berth", use of the term "birth canal" and the fact that courtrooms have "docks". All legal action between your
person and others is therefore conducted under admiralty law, mercantile law or commercial law, sometimes
referred to as the law of the sea.
Debunking
It should be noted that there is a legal principle known as Idem sonans (Latin for "sounding the same") which states
that similar sounding names are just as valid in referring to a person. The relevant UK precedent is R v Davis 1851.
If two names spelt differently necessarily sound alike, the court may, as matter of law, pronounce
“ them to be idem sonantia; but if they do not necessarily sound alike, the question whether they are
idem sonantia is a question of fact for the jury.
”
No defence which relied on a misspelt or slightly altered name has ever been recognised by the courts - neither, we
hope, would any sane person presume that they would.
The strawman belief seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the concept of legal person-hood. In actual legal
theory there is a difference between what is known as a 'natural person' (which is not a legal fiction) and that of a
corporate person (a legal fiction known as corporate person-hood, which applies to business, charities,
governments and any recognised organisation). Courts recognise human beings as 'persons', not as a legal fiction
joined to a flesh and blood human being but as one and the same (though in the past not everyone was recognised
as a person before the law). They have never recognised a right to distance oneself from ones person, or the ability
to opt out of person-hood. Where this defence has been tried in court, judges have rejected it. It is impossible to
dodge the law by insisting that you are different from your person. If a court can establish your identity, regardless
of your consent or cooperation, then they are free to engage in proceedings and sanctions against you.
The use of block capitals to fill in forms is often used as evidence for the existence of strawmen. The idea being that
the form is asking for your strawman's identity. In reality this is done for ease of reading by humans and computers
alike, it is not evidence of some legal conspiracy.
See also
Pseudolaw
Tax protestor
Sovereign citizen
Freeman on the land
Wishful thinking
References
1. ↑ Meet your Strawman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko) (YouTube)
2. ↑ http://www.fbi.gov/majcases/fraud/fraudschemes.htm#rsbf
3. ↑ http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
4. ↑ wikipedia:Capitis deminutio, which refers to Thomas Mackenzie Mackenzie and John Kirkpatrick: Studies
in Roman Law. Chapter II, pp. 71–2.
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman_theory"

Categories: Copper-level articles | Pseudolaw
This page was last modified on 6 October 2011, at 10:07.

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
13/12/2011 Sovereign citizen - RationalWiki
Sovereign citizen
From RationalWiki
The sovereign citizen movement claims that a person has the right under It's not even
common law (or at least their bizarre sham definition thereof) to declare a good idea
him/herself as essentially a nation unto themselves, and therefore may not be
subject to the law of the land where they live. It is closely associated, among Pseudolaw
other things, with such extreme right wing causes as the tax protester
movement and the militia movement in the United States. The term freeman
on the land is a pseudolegal term assumed as a title by some would-be
sovereigns, deriving from a complex and not-easily-explained conspiracy
theory involving admiralty law and the Uniform Commercial Code.
Though a few stateless people exist in the world (most in permanent

diplomatic limbo due to lack of any citizenship), and in the United States a I have a theory,
few have somewhat arcane legal status allowing them to be citizens of their which is mine
place of residence (currently recognized only in American Samoa and Swains
Island) but not the U.S. at large, the idea that one can renounce one's British Constitution Group
Citizen's Rule Book
citizenship in order to evade the laws of the land is not a right recognized in
most countries. (U.S. courts generally consider this argument frivolous.)
Crime woo
David Wynn Miller
This claim is also associated with a few bizarre "debt elimination" scams
Federal Reserve
which hold that if somebody files all the right paperwork with the government
Freeman on the land
declaring themselves a sovereign citizen, they then have access to unlimited
Gold standard (economics)
funds from the U.S. Treasury to pay off all their mortgages and other debts. Obama citizenship denial
The hows and whys behind this theory are difficult to make sense of; the Posse Comitatus
basic gist of the argument is that the Social Security Act established accounts (organization)
at the U.S. Treasury for every American citizen and that declaring oneself a States' rights
"sovereign citizen" gives one the legal right to issue "sight drafts" or "bills of Tax protester
exchange" which draw on your personal U.S. Treasury Account to pay off The Annotated Citizen's
debts. This is not true, and those who have fallen for this scam have found the Rule Book
only person who gained access to any funds as a result was the scammer
who charged you money to learn about this bizarre debt elimination method v -t-e
at his seminar. title=Template:Pseudolaw&action=edit)
An indication of the intellectual limitations for many members of the

movement is indicated by the response of a Texas motorist to a December 4, 2008 traffic stop. ""I am Texas
Republican sovereignty. "I do not recognize this as a legal traffic stop." he is reported to have stated.
Political sociology
The sovereign citizen movement appears to be a direct descendant of the Posse Comitatus movement. According
to the Southern Poverty Law Center the movement may have as many as 300,000 members
(http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane) .
Although populist antistatism is associated with rural and small town whites in the American West, it has also
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen 1/2
13/12/2011 Sovereign citizen - RationalWiki
appeared among urban African American squatters (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/24701116/detail.html) in the
American South. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has recently described (http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/da-
paper-terrorists-stealing-595202.html) them as "paper terrorists" for having the effrontery to squat in empty luxury
homes in south Dekalb County. DeKalb Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney John Melvin expressed class
outrage when he commented (http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-battling-sovereign-citizens-squatting-foreclosed-
homes/story?id=11445382) that, "It's amazing that these groups of citizens who like to proclaim they're Robin
Hood only choose million-dollar homes. Shocking." Presumably they should do their squatting in mobile homes or
hovels.
Given the willingness to act on, rather than merely propound, their ideas, together with the selection of valuable
properties for squatting, makes the movement resemble the "social banditry" that erupted in the past in
predominantly peasant societies presenting extreme income inequality. This is egalitarian redistribution of wealth
tricked up in the familiar, traditional language that politically legitimizes action. That it is occurring in an advanced
industrial society, in the alienating suburbs of Atlanta, is novel.
External links
'Sovereign' Citizen Kane (http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=122) , an expose on the "sovereign citizen"
movement and the murder of two police officers by "sovereign citizens" Jerry and Joe Kane
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen"

Categories: Pseudolaw | Extreme wingnuttery | Scams | Vigilantes
This page was last modified on 25 October 2011, at 00:45.

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen 2/2
13/12/2011 Tax protester - RationalWiki
Tax protester
From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Tax protestor)
Tax protester (less commonly, tax protestor) is a general category to It's not even
describe anyone who does not believe they are required to pay various taxes. a good idea
The most commonly disputed tax (in the US) is the income tax. In the United
States, tax protesters tend to be largely middle-class conservatives with a Pseudolaw
libertarian bent. The term "tax protester," while the preferred nomenclature, is
somewhat misleading. In more common parlance they might be called tax
deniers - and in practice tax evaders. Individuals who protest taxes for one
reason or another, while not denying the government's right to tax, are called
tax resisters.
I have a theory,
Contents which is mine
1 Methodology Crime woo

2 Claims David Wynn Miller
Federal Reserve
3 Cases
Flat tax
4 Exceptions to the rule Freeman on the land
5 Prohibition on Use of Term "Tax Protestor" Gold standard (economics)
6 British Poll Tax Militia movement
7 British tax protesters in 2010 Obama citizenship denial
8 See also Peter Hendrickson
9 External links Pseudolaw
10 Footnotes Robert Beale
Strawman theory
The Annotated Citizen's
Rule Book
Methodology v -t-e
Tax protesters use pseudolaw and follow many of the same methods as title=Template:Pseudolaw&action=edit)
creationists and other denialists in advocating their ideas, including: cherry
picking data, pseudohistory, quote mining, and deception. Not a single argument
ever presented by a tax protester has ever been accepted by a court of law as
valid.
There is are interesting links between tax protesting and creationist movements,
as well as the birthers, militia movement and some white supremacy
groups.[citation needed] In November 2006 Kent Hovind, an infamous peddler
of creationism, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for not paying income tax [1].
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tax_protestor 1/5
13/12/2011
of creationism, Taxfor
was sentenced to 10 years in jail protester - RationalWiki
not paying income tax .
Hovind was relying schemes pushed by "tax advisor" Glenn Stoll. Many people A typical tax protester,
have made a lot of money selling various schemes for avoiding having to pay yesterday.
taxes. Thousands of videos, books and conferences are offered every year that
promise to cure you of a tax burden for a price. One example is that of Irwin
Schiff and his site paynoincometax.com (http://www.paynoincometax.com/) who was sentenced to jail in 2005 for
his activities [2].
Tax protesters should be distinguished from tax resisters, who do not deny the government's right to levy taxes, but
refuse to pay as a matter of principle, due to their opposition to specific government policies (opposition to public
schooling or defense spending are common tropes). Such protesters are rather less likely to espouse right-
libertarian politics; some are, indeed, extreme liberals. Tax resistance is a form of civil disobedience, at least when
such people are willing to go to jail for the principle. One example of a tax resister is Henry David Thoreau, who
refused to pay his poll tax because it supported the Mexican War, which he considered an immoral land grab.
Claims
The claims of these groups will appear in italics, refutations in regular text. [3]
Variations on the theme that America's Founding Fathers did not believe that governments had
taxation powers.
Not true. The issue at stake was the Crown's ability to levy taxes on American colonies with no
representation in that government, not, say, Richmond's ability to tax Virginians.
Indeed, one of Congress's very first acts under the Constitution was to pass a tax on whiskey. When
the Whiskey Rebellion broke out as a result, George Washington himself called for the militia to put
down the rebellion and enforce the tax.
That the 16th Amendment was not ratified because Ohio wasn't a state, and thus didn't get the
requisite number of states to approve of it.
This argument relies on a slight technicality that Congress forgot to pass a resolution declaring Ohio a
state in 1803 and that Ohio only became a state in 1953. If this were true, then why did Ohioans have
Senators and Congressmen? Also it would not have mattered any way since 41 other states ratified it
anyway with the minimum being 36.
Even if the 16th Amendment hadn't been ratified, Federal income taxes had existed -- and been ruled
Constitutional by the courts -- since the Civil War. The 16th Amendment was proposed because the
5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust (1894) made it extremely messy
to pass income tax laws where property was involved.
It violates the 13th Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."
"Involuntary servitude" is actually a euphemism for slavery. Needless to say the equivalence between
sending a portion of your income to fund the government and being the legal property of another
person is not recognized by the courts.
Variants on claims like there is no law for an income tax or that the Internal Revenue Code does not
actually say income.
There are in fact several laws saying what is and is not taxable.
Income taxes are voluntary.
Stems from a misreading of a case where somebody did not file his 1040, but then demanded his full
refund. Voluntary in this case actually means that the person has to go and calculate it him or herself,
otherwise, no refund, or massive audit.
Cases
Gordon Kahl was a tax protester associated with the Posse Comitatus movement who died in a 1983
shootout with Arkansas police. Law enforcement had attempted to arrest him outside of his hometown of
Medina, North Dakota but he (or two others with him) shot two U.S. marshals and he fled in a stolen
Medina police car to Arkansas, where he died four months later in another shootout with law enforcement.
Kahl had failed to pay income taxes for several years and had previously (1977) spent eight months in prison
on tax evasion charges; the attempted 1983 arrest was for violation of his parole by continuing to fail to file
his federal taxes. The exact order of events during the Medina shootout is hotly disputed with Medina's local
police officers offering a different version than federal marshals, and Medina police and federal marshals each
blaming the other for botching the arrest.[4]
Aaron Russo (d. 27 August 2007), an "independent" filmmaker who owed taxes in three states, released a
documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism[5], which has become a rallying cry for many tax
protesters. Russo unquestionably regurgitated all of the classic arguments, misconceptions and lies.
In 2007 a major standoff occurred in the town of Plainfield, NH, between convicted tax evaders Ed and
Elaine Brown and the federal government. The Browns sealed themselves up in their fortified compound of a
home and promised the "next Waco" if the government tried to arrest them. Tax protesters and other anti-
government cranks, including Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame, flocked to the Browns' residence to bring
guns and supplies. [6] The Browns were taken into custody without incident on 4 October 2007 by US
Marshals posing as supporters.
Formerly-successful businessman, World Net Daily shareholder and increasingly gibbering crank Robert
Beale had his head turned by the works of Irwin Schiff and concocted elaborate schemes to just ... stop
paying income tax. This didn't work for him either. Even after his followers tried to scare the judge off the
case.
Exceptions to the rule

Tax protesters are occasionally acquitted; for example, the June 2007 not guilty verdict against Louisiana attorney
Tommy Cryer, which became something of a rallying point for the movement. Cryer did not attempt to argue there
is no law making him liable for income tax. Instead, he used what has come to be known as the "cheek defense,"
essentially claiming that he did not know that he had to file and could not have willfully failed to file. The opinion of
tax experts is that Cryer was acquitted based on an incompetent prosecution that failed to demonstrate that Cryer
was aware of the need to file. Civilly, Cryer was still found to be liable for back taxes, fees, and interest and is
currently raising money to pay off his taxes. All acquittals have come from jury trials for criminal conduct. These
acquittals range from Cheek defenses like Cryer to jury nullification in cases where it seems defendants have
convinced a few jury members of their arguments. The important point is that "not guilty" verdicts by juries do not
have anything to do with the status of the law nor are they precedent setting. No matter of law has ever been
decided in favor of a tax protester and even with an acquittal for criminal conduct the civil liability of taxes has
always been met.
Prohibition on Use of Term "Tax Protestor"
In the spirit of the Indiana Pi Bill, the U.S. Congress has probhibited the IRS from calling individuals as "tax
protestors." The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Section 3707 was supposed to
prevent the IRS from using the designation tax protestor in taxpayers' case narratives. Congress felt that calling tax
protestors "tax protestors" would bias IRS employees in future contacts with these individuals. Euphemisms like
"constitutionally challenged" were also prohibited. However, as of 2010, IRS employees were still using those
terms, despite attempts to prevent this by altering software used to maintain the files.[7]
British Poll Tax

The attempt by Margaret Thatcher to tax everyone equally for local services, without regard to income, wealth or
consumption, was resisted by campaigns of tax refusal from both left- and right-wing parts of society. This form of
taxation was officially known as the "Community Charge", but was widely referred to as the "Poll Tax". Attempts to
collect arrears using bailiffs were often met with physical resistance, and several, often elderly, protestors went to
jail for their refusal to pay the tax[citation needed]. Ultimately, a major riot in London's Trafalgar Square over the
issue, and Thatcher's refusal to change her mind, were among the reasons that led to her own party removing her
from office.
The Poll Tax was not a replacement for income tax: it was a tax used to fund services at a local level, and has been
replaced by the current Council Tax based on the value of one's home. This is also quite unpopular[8] as the
valuation bands are rarely updated, councils frequently incorrectly classify property values, it takes no account of
the difference between renting and owning and punishments range from draconian to absurd. But nothing like as
unpopular as the Poll Tax was.
British tax protesters in 2010

An entirely different type of "tax protester" movement began in the UK in 2010 under the name 'UK Uncut'. In this
case the protest was about organisations (specifically large companies like the mobile phone network Vodafone or
the retail chain Arcadia Group) not paying enough (or evading/avoiding) taxes and the object of the movement was
to find ways to make them pay.[9]
See also
Teabagging (protest)
Common law
Tax haven
Tom Cryer
External links
The Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) , considered the definitive online reference
(outside the US income tax law of course) on legal arguments used by US tax protesters
Footnotes
1. ↑ Kent Hovind, ‘Dr. Dino,’ guilty on all counts (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16451/kent-hovind-dr-
13/12/2011
1. ↑ Kent Hovind, ‘Dr. Dino,’ guilty on allTax protester
counts - RationalWiki
(http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16451/kent-hovind-dr-
dino-guilty-on-all-counts) (retrieved February 2009)
2. ↑ USDOJ on Schiff (http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05548.htm)
3. ↑ You can learn more about bullshit at this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments
4. ↑ See It's All About Power by Darrell Graf and Steve Schnabel (ISBN 0-942323-31-9) for the Medina
police version
5. ↑ The video can be viewed in its entirety at Google video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
1656880303867390173) .
6. ↑ Union leader article on the Browns (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=Browns+say+they+will+either+walk+free%2C+or+die&articleId=a02db0e8-8042-474e-8a82-
1fb5dc2f6306)
7. ↑ Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Report: Fiscal Year 2010 Statutory Audit of
Compliance With Legal Guidelines Prohibiting the Use of Illegal Tax Protester and Similar Designations
(Reference Number: 2010-30-073).
8. ↑ Unless you're a grubby student and don't have to pay it.
9. ↑ British tax protesters being monitored by police - the Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/uk-uncut-protests-undercover-police)
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tax_protester"

Categories: Bronze-level articles | Pseudolaw | Right-wing activists | Extreme wingnuttery | Law | Libertarianism |
Tax | Tax protesters
This page was last modified on 8 December 2011, at 01:20.

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
13/12/2011 Corporate personhood - RationalWiki
From RationalWiki
Corporate personhood is a form of legal bullshit whereby an entity (whether for- It's not just
profit, non-profit, private, or public) is declared a person. The corporation is a good idea
thus legally separate from its owners for purposes of liability and taxation. Its
owners are not personally liable for any corporate debts, so personal assets Law
cannot be collected, as in bankruptcy or lawsuits. Corporations were then
called "artificial persons."
Most well known is the for-profit corporation. Originally all corporations had to
be granted special charters from the government and were only given these for
express purposes (such as to build a bridge, dam, or other vital public works).
Limited liablity was a privilege in these cases. The British East India Company
was the first multi-national corporation, arguably, granted corporate status by Random enforcement
Queen Elizabeth I, and served as a quasi-governmental body for over 300
years, even ruling India for half a century. Capital punishment
Child predators on the
In the US, common law was followed and corporations granted charters for Internet
special projects which could be (and were) revoked if malfeasance occurred. Child support
Common law
Today such a revocation is extremely rare. As the US grew and expanded,
Defense of Marriage Act
corporations did as well. Since the stockholders were not liable for debts or
J. Edgar Hoover
wrongdoings of the corporation, they were able to accumulate much greater
Jury nullification
wealth, building up industry (with protection by tariffs and state subsidies, we Rule of law
must add). Next came railroads, build to claim the new territories conquered Ten Commandments
and connect the vast stretches of land as they were settled. Vigilante
In 1886, the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. v -t-e
394, was decided by the US Supreme Court. Though it dealt with the (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?
constitutionality of a tax by Santa Clara County on the Southern Pacific Railroad title=Template:Law&action=edit)
running in California, the ruling in favor of the Southern Pacific was used to grant
corporations the rights of persons guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the
ruling did not even address corporate personhood, only whether the tax was constitutional or not-which it held
invalid. A headnote was put in the case by the court reporter stated corporations were held to be people under the
ruling. The court reporter was a former railroad lawyer and supporter of the idea. Headnotes do not have
precedent value, however, but only the case holding itself. Despite this, it was assumed to be the holding and was
used since then to grant corporations unprecedented rights, leading us to where we are today, with corporate
dominance over much of life in the US-huge power, but very little accountability.
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court voted 5-4 to ban the government from limiting political donations from
corporations, citing the free speech principle of the First Amendment and overruling two precedents on the issue.[1]
Footnotes
1. ↑ New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html)
rationalwiki.org/…/Corporate_personho… 1/2
13/12/2011 Corporate personhood - RationalWiki
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood"
Categories: Law | Pseudolaw

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
rationalwiki.org/…/Corporate_personho… 2/2
13/12/2011 Social contract - RationalWiki
Social contract
From RationalWiki
The social contract is a political concept proposing that there is an implied "contract" between individuals and the
society to which they belong, in which they agree to adhere to that society's laws in exchange for the benefits of
thereto belonging. It is the most popular secular Deontological school of thought.
The theory was largely developed during the Enlightenment, parts of it forming the basis for many of the advances in
political freedom during that time. More recently, it has been promoted by secular humanists as a means by which
morality can be promoted in a society without the need to cite God as its source.
Contents
1 Plato on the social contract
2 Epicurus
3 Developments during the Enlightenment
4 Applications in secular ethics
5 Criticisms of the social contract
5.1 Religious
5.2 Secular
6 See also
7 Footnotes
Plato on the social contract

The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito. In the dialogue,
Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying,
essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws."
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has
“ come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he
pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any
of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city,
may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in
which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied
contract that he will do as we command him.
”
Epicurus
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_contract 1/4
Epicurus argued for a form of contractarian justice, contemporary to Plato. He said that justice is "an agreement of
mutual benefit" and a "compact neither to harm or be harmed."[1] Epicurus' account lead him to many modern
positions in ethics, including considering women and slaves as equals in his philosophical commune called The
Garden.
Developments during the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment incarnation of the theory, made chiefly by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, was about the same in effect, but different in principle.
It started out with a concept of "natural rights," or rights to do things that can be done. There is, for example, a
natural right to think or eat, but there is no natural right not to suffer a nasty fall when one jumps off a cliff. A
primitive person, living in a "state of nature," has all their natural rights.
Of course, when humans start living together in society, there will be conflicts when different people start exercising
their natural rights. This means that to live in a society, a person must surrender certain of his/her natural rights by
means of the implicit social contract.
Further refinements supplemented this notion of an individual surrender of rights with a collective one (e.g.
governments ruling by the "consent of the governed"). These concepts eventually worked their way into the U.S.'s
Declaration of Independence and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Applications in secular ethics

Secular humanist organizations, such as the Council for Secular Humanism, applaud the social contract's history of
breaking the power of regimes based on divine right, and see in its principles a way to promote morality in society
without involving the supernatural[2].
Criticisms of the social contract

Religious
Let all souls be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that
“ be are ordained of God. ”
—Romans 13:1
A common religious criticism of the social contract runs something like this: You have no natural rights. God
owns you, so you have to do what he says. Which, incidentally, is the same thing as what I say. OBEY OR
BURN!
Strangely enough, many of the people making this argument also pretend to accept the principles of the Declaration
of Independence, probably because they like the idea that they have the right to kick out a government that is
stopping them from bringing in a theocracy.
Secular
"A sale," said Rearden slowly, "requires the seller's consent."

“ ”
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
One secular argument against the idea of the social contract, made by American individualist anarchist Lysander
Spooner, is that it is not really a contract at all, that it is unilaterally imposed on the people who must give up their
rights. It's a click-wrap EULA you don't get to read first.
According to this argument, since people do not choose where they are born, their presence in a country cannot
possibly imply their acceptance of the social contract: claiming that a person has "freely chosen" to accept the social
contract is like chopping someone's legs off and then saying they are "freely choosing" not to walk. After all, babies
born in America cannot simply refuse to become American and join, say, Chinese society just because they want
to.
Similar arguments are made by Objectivists and libertarians, who argue that one can only sign away one's natural
rights to private parties, not the government, because the government is just too creepy for that (or in their words,
upheld by initiation of force, or in this case also fraud).
Whereas Plato had said, in the passage quoted above, that Athenians who did not wish to abide by the city's laws
and customs were free to leave, this is not true of modern societies. Individuals can only emigrate with a valid visa
reason, and will still be entering another society, with similar laws in many cases. Arguably, asylum seekers can be
said to have rejected the social contract of their homeland and be seeking a social contract in a less oppressive
society. It does not hold that another society will let them settle. In addition, those who reject the social contract
altogether have nowhere to go, since virtually the entire planet is bound by laws and government. This is a common
criticism of social contract theory by anarchists.
Another argument is that there are certain human rights that cannot be signed away at all; e.g., to refute Phyllis
Schlafly's view of marital rape, one might say that a woman cannot sign away her right not to be raped. This may
seem obvious, but it's not to some. In fact, until the 20th century the legal doctrine coverture
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture) said that women, upon being married, gave up all rights. Famously it was
put (accurately) "husband and wife are one person and that person is the husband." So in this case the wives not
only could not control their income, if they had one (no joint accounts, sorry), but they also could not be legally
raped by their husbands, since the husband would be raping himself. Ah, the good old days. Yeah...
See also
Deontology
Secular humanism
Footnotes
1. ↑ Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5e) , Epicurus on justice.
2. ↑ "100 Humanist Events That Changed the World". Free Inquiry magazine. Council for Secular Humanism.
February 13, 2004. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/100_humanist_20.2.htm.
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_contract"

Categories: Political philosophies | Political theory

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
13/12/2011 Pseudolaw - RationalWiki
Pseudolaw
From RationalWiki
Pseudolaw encompasses any legal theory developed or action taken that It's not even
relies heavily on frivolous arguments trumped up in legal language. Pseudolaw a good idea
shares many homologous and analogous traits with pseudoscience such as
the use of argument from authority, equivocation, and quote mining. Like Pseudolaw
pseudoscience most of the proponents of pseudolaw are laymen with little to
no legal experience (outside their own trials and incarcerations). While an
overwhelming majority of those in the legal profession reject the arguments,
there are a few cranks with law degrees and licenses that push pseudolaw as
well.
I have a theory,
Contents which is mine
1 Signs of pseudolaw British Constitution Group

2 High profile pseudolawyers Citizen's Rule Book
3 Law, authority and hucksters
Crime woo
4 Pseudolaw and conspiracy theories David Wynn Miller
5 Debt elimination scams Flat tax
6 The cost of pseudolaw Gold standard (economics)
7 External links Posse Comitatus
8 Footnotes (organization)
Provisional Imperial
Government
States' rights
Signs of pseudolaw Strawman theory
Tax protester
Much like pseudoscience, one of the first hints that a legal theory is The United States as a
pseudolaw is when it bucks against established legal consensus and Christian nation
precedent. However, while necessary this is not a sufficient condition. Much
v -t-e
of currently accepted law was once against precedent. The primary thing to (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?
look for is if the legal theory or argument has been tried before a court and title=Template:Pseudolaw&action=edit)
whether it was rejected. If an argument has been rejected by the courts on a
repeated basis anyone attempting to push that argument is practicing pseudolaw.
While the ultimate test of pseudolaw is how it is ultimately perceived and used in a court of law (just as with
pseudoscience the ultimate test is how it performs with predictions against empirical reality) there are many red flags
that can identify pseudolaw even without a court ruling. These include, but are not limited to:
Over reliance on technicalities such as spelling or grammar. For example, some people argue that the
traditional use of all capital letters for names in court briefings is a different entity than the actual person in the
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw 1/5
case.[1] See, for instance, David Wynn Miller.
Quoting Supreme Court cases out of context, usually one or two sentences, or sometimes even a phrase.
Tax protesters are fond of quoting Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment
"conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) to argue that the income tax is illegal.
However, the ruling is not saying that the 16th amendment did not provide power to tax income, but rather
that Congress already had that power. This is classic quote mining.
Reference to other arguments that have been rejected as frivolous by courts. Pseudolaw concepts flock
together and cross-pollinate.
Arguments that refer to the United States of America Incorporated or to the Federal government somehow
seeming to be a private enterprise or company. [2]
Jurisdictional challenges that focus on claiming the federal government has no right to try cases in states. A
favorite is to claim that any court with gold fringe on the flag is a "maritime" court not a real court.[3]
Arguments that try and say that the court, police, public officials, etc. have no authority over an individual
unless that individual has consented to that authority. This is often phrased as along the lines of "once you
accept an attorney, you're bound by contract to the court, but if you refuse an attorney they have no
authority."
Intense hatred of lawyers and the bar, reference to the bar as being run by the Illuminati or Masons, and
encouraging people with little to no legal training to refuse appointed attorneys and proceed pro se.[4]
References to the Titles of Nobility Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_amendment)
(the so-called "missing 13th Amendment" to the United States Constitution). Similarly, some pseudolawyers
even argue that persons who use the title of "Esquire" (generally practicing attorneys)[5] are not citizens and
cannot hold public office.[6]
References to the Uniform Commercial Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code) in
cases which do not involve private commercial transactions (such as criminal, traffic, and tax cases)[7]
References to "admiralty law" or "maritime law" in cases which clearly do not involve any matters which
occurred at sea or in navigable waters.
References to "military" or "martial law" in matters that do not involve the military or members thereof.
Pseudolawyers are fond of making up jargon from Latin, that they claim derive from common law and give
people special rights that others do not such as juris spurious when used in filing claims. [8]
On a similar note, pseudolawyers often misuse legal terminology, often because they do not have a full
understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss.
Extraordinary claims such as being able to get anyone out of jail, no matter what they were convicted of, in a
matter of weeks. [9]
High profile pseudolawyers

Pseudolaw practitioners can fall into several categories, primarily laymen with no legal training or license who
"advise" clients, and true lawyers that have embraced crankhood to push some particular pseudolaw theory. From
time to time one of these pseudolawyers will gain press attention because their ideas are being used in increasing
numbers, or in a high profile case, or because they themselves are being prosecuted.
One recent (as of October 2007) example is that of Tommy Cryer, a Louisiana-based attorney who has been a
popular speaker in the tax protester movement. Cryer claims that there is no law that makes individuals liable for
income tax and pushes his theory using all the classic pseudolaw methods discussed above. [10] He was recently
prosecuted for willful failure to file an income tax return but was found not guilty by the jury.[11] Because of the
rarity of such an event Cryer has received some media attention and tax protesters everywhere are trumpeting this
as a victory for their cause. In reality, Cryer got off by convincing the jury he did not willfully fail to file because he
didn't know he had to. He was still found liable for the tax and will never be able to use such a defense again. But
Cryer has used his "victory" to continue making money on the lecture tour (despite others such as Sherry Jackson
who have attempted to use his defense and lost).[12]
Another example is that of Tony Davis and his International Legal Services
(http://www.intlegalservices.com/default.asp) business. Davis pretends he is a lawyer, though he is really just a
convicted felon with no legal training. For the small price of $12,000 he promises to get anyone out of jail no matter
what crime they committed or when based on a technicality he claims makes every conviction in the last 60 years
null and void.[9] True to form with most cranks and con men, while his theory was rejected outright by every level
of the court system, he continues to claim that he is right and victory is around the corner. [13] A similar pattern has
occurred with Mitch Modeleski a/k/a Paul Andrew Mitchell and his "Supreme Law Firm"
(http://www.supremelaw.org/) , who has filed a number of frivolous lawsuits and threatened a number of people
with baseless suits.[14]
Law, authority and hucksters

Though not strictly pseudolaw, many people have attempted to use their position as a "lawyer" to somehow gain
authority on issues or even run scams similar to televangelists. For example, Andrew Schlafly (mildly e-famous for
his blog, conservapedia) has a law degree, but has not been involved in any serious legal practice and has not
participated in any meaningful way in the legal system. But he uses his position as a "lawyer" to attempt to gain
authority to argue his polemic points, such as the link between abortion and breast cancer. [15]
Other examples include individuals such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center of Law and Justice, which is
essentially a giant anti-ACLU crank organization. [16] Sekulow files amicus curiae briefs on cases other people
have brought up, then pretends on his daily radio show that he is an integral part of all of these cases. He then starts
begging for money; he has essentially made a living pretending to be a lawyer and hating the ACLU.
Neither Sekulow nor Schlafly have participated in a meaningful way in the legal system. While they are lawyers in
the loosest sense of the word, the only thing they do with these credentials is use them to fleece the gullible and push
an ideologically-driven agenda. This is not technically pseudolaw but it is an important element in the abuse of the
legal system.
Pseudolaw and conspiracy theories

Pseudolaw often goes hand and hand with other conspiracy theories. Most pseudolaw practitioners believe there is
a vast conspiracy to cover up a group of elitists that control all the judges, courts, juries and the government as a
whole. This is why their ideas never work in court--not because they are wrong, but because there is a conspiracy
to suppress them (just like the vast materialist conspiracy propping up the Darwinian orthodoxy). This dark group
holds all the classic labels such as Masons, Illuminati, and Zionists. There is also a tendency to believe that violent
revolution is coming and to stockpile supplies, weapons and ammunition. Many of the militia and extremist groups
that have dominated press coverage of domestic terrorism over the last decade have relied heavily on pseudolaw
concepts and conspiracies.
Debt elimination scams

Some debt elimination scams are based on pseudo-legal arguments. One such scam that has been circulating for
years in different forms claims that the United States Treasury Department has a trust fund established for every
U.S. citizen with a Social Security number, which funds can (somehow) be accessed by filing the appropriate
paperwork at the county courthouse declaring oneself a sovereign of the "united states of America" and disclaiming
federal citizenship in the "United States of America" (note the pseudo-legal obsession with making distinctions
where none exist based on capitalization). Then, goes the theory, one need only print a "Sight Draft", or "Bill of
Exchange", transferring one's home loans and other debts to the U.S. Treasury Department. These bogus
documents are rejected by lenders as a matter of course, and courts have repeatedly found in favor of lenders and
against those attempting this method, declaring such documents worthless.
The cost of pseudolaw

The greatest cost is to those that buy into the theories and wind up spending years in jail and often losing all of their
life work in the processes. While some of these people may be just greedy and looking for a way out of paying their
fair share, some may honestly be seeking something and get pulled in by the cult-like mentality of the movement.
Family members of those in prison also face tremendous costs, such as when Tony Davis would go to people and
claim to be able to get their family members out of jail for thousands of dollars. When it failed and people tried to
get their money back, Davis sued them.[13]
There is also an inherent cost to the legal system in processing the frivolous claims, and to all aspects of government
when pseudolaw is taken to the extreme, such as the case of Ed Brown. Ed Brown was a tax protester who bought
into all the conspiracy and pseudolaw theories. After his conviction, he and his wife holed up in their house and
refused to leave, threatening violent action against law enforcement. The eight month standoff was extremely costly
both in terms of dollar figures and the time and energy of law enforcement. [17]
Finally, like all examples of irrationality, there is the intellectual cost of destruction of reason. For all of these
reasons, pseudolaw is a dangerous trend that needs as much vigilance as any of the pseudoscience movements.
External links
Idiot Legal Arguments at ADL.org (http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp) , a mindbendingly dense and often
snarky list of refutations of US pseudolaw theories, written by Bernard Sussman for the Anti-Defamation
League in 1999.
The Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) , a somewhat more accessible presentation
of US pseudolaw as used by tax protesters.
Footnotes
1. ↑ Discussion and court cases surrounding the all caps issue
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/NamesInCaps.htm)
2. ↑ Pseudolaw rant about the USA, inc. (http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/federalgovernment.htm)
3. ↑ Pseudolaw rant involving maritime courts and the gold fringe on flags (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm)
13/12/2011
3. ↑ Pseudolaw rant Pseudolaw
involving maritime courts and the- RationalWiki
gold fringe on flags (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm)
4. ↑ Biblical pseudolaw rant against lawyers and the Bar Association
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild01.htm#Ministry%20of%20Justice-
%20American%20Bar%20Association)
5. ↑ The first thing we do, let's remove the citizenship of all the lawyers.
6. ↑ Essay which makes exactly this argument (http://www.supremelaw.org/library/esquires.html)
7. ↑ Bizarre pseudolaw book referencing the Bible and misusing legal terminology
(http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=20674)
8. ↑ Motion of Particulars from a victim of pseudolaw (http://www.scribd.com/doc/455690/Federal-District-
Court-Defendant-Motion-for-Bill-of-Particulars)
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Ex-convict appeals to inmates' hopes for freedom
(http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/28/1028tony.html)
10. ↑ Summary of Cryer's pseudolaw delusions (http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/)
11. ↑ Cryer found not guilty (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03)
12. ↑ Example of one of Cryer's current paid gigs (he needs the money to pay back taxes!)
(http://givemeliberty.org/CONVENTION/GML2007/Registration.aspx)
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 U.S. Supreme Court rejects ex-convict's legal argument
(http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/30/1030tony.html)
14. ↑ Site critical of Paul Andrew Mitchell (http://www.paulandrewmitchell.com/)
15. ↑ Schlafly and his breast cancer rant (http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html)
16. ↑ ACLJ on the ACLU (http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=68)
17. ↑ Local editorial on the standoff (http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20071007/OPINION/710070391&SearchID=73298253103380)
Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies

Pseudoarcheology - Pseudohistory - Pseudolaw - Pseudolinguistics - Pseudomathematics - Pseudoscience -
Pseudoscience list - Pseudoscience in advertising - Pseudoskepticism - Pseudovitamin
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw"

Categories: Bronze-level articles | Pseudolaw | Bullshit | Law

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers
13/12/2011 Federal Reserve - RationalWiki
Federal Reserve
From RationalWiki
The Federal Reserve, often referred to as "the Fed", is the central bank of the United The "dismal" science
States, established in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act.
Economics
Contents
1 What does it do?
1.1 Maiden Lane and the financial crisis
2 What's wrong with the anti-Fed crankery?
2.1 Conspiracy theories Key concepts
2.2 Ownership
$ Economics
2.3 Trouble with accounting identities $ Capitalism
2.4 Pseudolaw $ Communism
2.5 Austrian school and free banking proponents $ Socialism
2.6 Ignoring Lessons from the US Free Banking Era (1837 to 1864)
2.7 Ignoring the original Great Depression (1873–79 or 96) More about economics
2.8 After the establishment of the Fed
3 See also Candlemakers' Petition
4 External links Corporation
Cyclical theory
5 Footnotes
Laffer curve
Macroeconomics
Michael T. Snyder
What does it do? Notable economists
The Fed essentially controls the amount of cash money in the United States and sets monetary Ben Bernanke
policy. It has 12 branch banks (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, John Maynard Keynes
Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco) which loan Milton Friedman
money to banks within their respective regions. When one of the banks determines that the Paul Krugman
cash supply is too low in its area it will place an order with the Treasury Department to Ross McKitrick
print/mint more bills or coins (or, more often, digitally mark up accounts these days). This
money is then lent at an interest rate to banks who then lend it to people and businesses. v-t-e
Previously the money supply was effectively in the hands of various Wall Street movers and
title=Template:Economics&action=edit)
shakers (e.g. J.P. Morgan).
Some dare call it
Oh, the irony! The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for two decades (1986-2006)
was Alan Greenspan, a former disciple of Ayn Rand. Conspiracy
Maiden Lane and the financial crisis
During the banking crisis of 2008, the answer to "What does it do?" became "buy loads of
toxic assets from failing banks." The Fed created a number of dummy corporations (sorry,
"special purpose vehicles") called Maiden Lane I, II, and III to buy up crap from Wall
Street and government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This has raised
the issue of the legality of the Fed's actions during this period.[1] A subsequent, full audit of
the Fed revealed numerous conflicts of interest in the deals.[2] In what became nicknamed
the "backdoor bailout," the Fed provided $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-
term loans and assistance to Wall Street and foreign banks.[3]
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve 1/4
Secrets revealed!
What's wrong with the anti-Fed crankery?
9/11 conspiracy theories
While one can find many legitimate criticisms of the Fed (incompetence, cronyism, etc.), Catcher in the Rye
much of the opposition to the Fed comes from a basic misunderstanding of how it Council on Foreign Relations
operates or a conspiratorial view. Extreme low frequency
FEMA concentration camps
Conspiracy theories Georgia Guidestones
Majestic 12
The Fed has been a frequent subject of conspiracy theories alleging the Fed creates Morgellons disease
Shakespeare authorship
inflation, recessions, and even the Great Depression, through manipulation of the money
The Obama Deception
supply.[4] Father Coughlin, the John Birch Society, Liberty Lobby, Eustace Mullins, Pat
Robertson, Alex Jones, Texe Marrs and several others have frequently expressed such v - t - e (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?
conspiracy theories. In some (but not all) cases these conspiracy theories have an anti- title=Template:Conspiracynav&action=edit)
Semitic component, alleging "Jews" secretly or openly control the Fed. These theories are
furthermore sometimes tied in to other conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission or the New World Order, or
manipulation of the U.S. economy by the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking families.[5]
It seems like many of Ron Paul's followers have come up with a new completely insane theory in 2011 about the Federal Reserve,
borrowing some points from Lyndon LaRouche. Apparently the Federal Reserve is now a foreign banking institution controlled by
the British, and Britain is now firmly in control of the Rothschild family. They are making the national debt increase, through their
control of the Federal Reserve, to the point where they can take their former colony back. The only person who can save the US is
now Ron Paul,[6] who is above the influence.[7]
Ownership
Critics of the Fed make a big deal out of the fact that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation partially governed by the same
banks it is supposed to regulate rather than a federal government agency. So what? This is similar to the status of Amtrak, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the United States Postal Service, all examples of other major clusterfucks.
Of course, being a major clusterfuck is not synonymous with being a conspiracy controlling the world -- indeed, they are almost
complete opposites.
There is also the misconception that the Fed is completely independent or private. This is false as it is a quasi-public entity. The Fed,
like most central banks in the world, is considered "independent," which is basically a term of art meaning that its day-to-day
operations are not overseen by the federal government. However, its chairman and board of governors are appointed by the
president. It is also subject to Congressional legislation.[8] Under the Full Employment Act of 1946 and the Federal Reserve Reform
Act of 1977, the Fed has a dual mandate to work toward full employment and to curb inflation and deflation (i.e., price stability).[9]
It is also subject to certain types of audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Trouble with accounting identities

At the simplest level of anti-Fed crankery is the idea that the Fed "owns" the government. This
is due to a misconception of how the Fed operates. Monetary cranks claim that the Fed lends
money to the government at interest, thereby stealing "the people's" money and selling us into
debt slavery or some similar nefarious scheme to take over the US government. The way this
Marriner S. Eccles building, works, however, is not quite the same as your regular commercial bank. The interest on debt
the Fed's headquarters held by the Fed actually goes to two places: One, the Fed pays itself out of this interest to cover
(fedquarters?). This is where its own operating costs, and two, the rest of the interest is rebated to the treasury. So, no, the
the bankstahs plot to sell your Fed does not own the government or sell us into debt slavery.[10]
children into debt slavery.
Pseudolaw
This usually ties into the above point: The basic idea is the the Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money, so the Fed is
unconstitutional because it is not the Congress. This is a pseudolegal argument because the Congress may delegate its powers. This
is similar to pseudolegal arguments made by gold bugs.[11]
Austrian school and free banking proponents

Much of the opposition to the Fed in non-conspiratorial circles (though there is some overlap) comes from the Austrian school, who
are free banking proponents and generally draw on Ludwig von Mises' arguments against central banking. Ron Paul is particularly
known for his multi-decadal anti-Fed crusade in Congress. In short, they claim that the Fed creates the business cycle[12] through
the expansion of the money supply which leads to "malinvestment" due to easy money.
Ignoring Lessons from the US Free Banking Era (1837 to 1864)

The biggest flaw with the free banking proponents is they either are ignorant or ignore the many problems seen in the Free Banking
Era of the US.
The first problem was that during this era banks issued bank notes based on the gold and silver in their vaults effectively printing
money. Since these bank notes could only be redeemed at face value at the bank that issued them the result was the actual value of
the note decreasing the further from the bank it got. Then there was the issue if the bank failed these bank notes became worthless.
This made any form of long distance commerce difficult if not impossible.
The second problem was since the laws were set up by the individual states there was no consistency with regard to reserve
requirements, interest rates for loans and deposits, capital ratios, or anything else. Worse enforcement of what laws there were was
highly variable within a state. This resulted in some states what was later called wildcat banking where the bank notes were not
backed by precious metal at all but by mortgages or bonds.[13] In other words the exact same problems as are claimed regarding
the Fed but with even less oversight.
Ignoring the original Great Depression (1873–79 or 96)
Before the Crash of 1929 the Great Depression refereed to the period of 1873–96 which was marked with deflation largely
because the US shifted from a bimetallic standard to a de facto gold standard in 1873 and the rapid industrialization of the country.
The term Gilded Age is also applied to this period and sometimes in a pejorative manner--a shiny golden cover hiding a rotting or
rotted core. The deflation that marked this period is why some wanted to return to a bimetallic standard as hammered home in
William Jennings Bryan's famous Cross of Gold speech in 1896. Even the shorter range of 1873–79 stated by the NBER is longer
then the 1930's Great Depression by 22 months. The lesson the Long Depression as it now is called gives us is that switching over
to a gold standard (which the Coinage Act of 1873 effectively did) triggers off deflation for extended periods of time.
After the establishment of the Fed

The US only saw three major banking crises after the establishment of the Fed (Great Depression, S&L crisis, 2008 financial crisis)
and only two since the creation of federal deposit insurance compared to one about every decade prior to that.[14] The business
cycle has also seen shorter and smaller contractions.
Essentially, what this demonstrates is that certain libertarians[15] and Austrian schoolers like Ron Paul seem to love the idea of going
back to the 19th century and having us all stuff gold bricks under our mattresses every time it looks like there's going to be a run on
the bank.
See also
Ben Bernanke, current Fed chairman
Fractional-reserve banking, also controlled by the Jews or selling us into debt slavery...or something.
Milton Friedman, wrote the first definitive history of the Fed.
Zeitgeist, helped to revive the conspiracy theories
External links
The Fed's website (http://www.federalreserve.gov/)
Debunking Federal Reserve conspiracies (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html)
Federal Reserve myths (http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/secret.htm)
Debunking Zeitgeist's segment on the Fed (http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-federal-reserve)
The Fed - Tool of the New World Order or Jewish Conspiracy? Part I
(http://thelongrunblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/the-fed-tool-of-the-new-world-order-or-jewish-conspiracy/) , Part II
(http://thelongrunblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/the-fed-part-ii/)
Rethinking Central Banking
(http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2011/09_ciepr_central_banking/Rethinking%20Central%20Banking.pdf)
, Brookings Institution
Structure and Function of the Federal Reserve System (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20826.pdf) , Congressional
Research Service Report
Footnotes
1. ↑ Chad Emerson. The Illegal Actions of the Federal Reserve: An Analysis of How the Nation's Central Bank Has Acted Outside the
Law in Responding to the Current Financial Crisis. (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1004&context=wmblr) William & Mary Business Law Review, vol. 1, iss. 1
2. ↑ Federal Reserve Audit Highlights Potential Conflicts of Interest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-
reserve-audit-highlights-possible-conflicts-of-interest/2011/07/21/gIQAJbbnSI_story.html) , Washington Post
3. ↑ Fed's 'Backdoor Bailout' Provided $3.3 Trillion in Loans to Banks, Corporations
(http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/02-7) , The Nation
4. ↑ Actually, it does do these things, but not quite in the way conspiracy theorists mean. The Fed sets a "target rate" of inflation
through open market operations to set interest rates. The Fed does not have all-powerful control over inflation (or deflation) as
conspiracists allege, its operations are merely one factor influencing the value of currency. Similarly, in an attempt to head off excess
inflation, the Fed may overreact, tighten up too much and induce unemployment, possibly creating a recession. Again, this is due to
the fact that the Fed cannot perfectly micromanage the economy, not that it's deliberately causing these problems.
5. ↑ Jewish "Control" of the Federal Reserve: A Classic Anti-Semitic Myth
(http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_intro.asp) , Anti-Defamation League
6. ↑ Youtube - Hwy Ron Paul can Save us All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&feature=player_embedded)
7. ↑ The Federal Reserve: History of Lies, Thievery, and Deceit (http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm)
8. ↑ Federal Reserve Bank Ownership (http://factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/) , FactCheck
9. ↑ The Fed's dual mandate dates to a 1946 act (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112503125.html) , Washington Post
10. ↑ Myth #8 (http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/feddebt.htm)
11. ↑ The Importance of the Federal Reserve (http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm) , Joint Economic Committee Report,
Mar. 1997
12. ↑ Not as part of a conspiracy, though. They claim that any government interference in the market necessarily "distorts" it. Thus, it is
through the incompetence of bureaucrats and the impossibility of regulating the market efficiently.
13. ↑ Wildcat banking Investopedia definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp#axzz1Y3ASo3Ks)
14. ↑ See the Wikipedia article on List of banking crises.
15. ↑ Even arch-libertarian Milton Friedman didn't want to get rid of the Fed. He actually proposed replacing it with a computer
(http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27140) that would just spit out money as economic growth occurred.
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve"

Categories: Bronze-level articles | Conspiracy theories | Economics | Pseudolaw | Anti-Semitism

Privacy policy
About RationalWiki
Disclaimers

Freeman On The Land

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freeman On The Land

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13/12/2011 Freeman on the land - RationalWiki

Freeman on the land

Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of the jurisdiction

How it works (or not)

—Black's law dictionary 6th edition 1991

never harm or causes loss

Legal Person or Straw man

Contracts and statutes

Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and

Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common

Whereas I Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-land, and

Whereas it is my understanding that all authority possessed by elected representatives must

Admiralty law and courts

Economics and finance

Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons

This page was last modified on 22 November 2011, at 00:07.

John of the family Smith

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman_theory"

This page was last modified on 6 October 2011, at 10:07.

Though a few stateless people exist in the world (most in permanent

An indication of the intellectual limitations for many members of the

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen"

This page was last modified on 25 October 2011, at 00:45.

(Redirected from Tax protestor)

1 Methodology Crime woo

Exceptions to the rule

Prohibition on Use of Term "Tax Protestor"

British Poll Tax

British tax protesters in 2010

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tax_protester"

This page was last modified on 8 December 2011, at 01:20.

This page was last modified on 20 November 2011, at 00:05.

Plato on the social contract

Developments during the Enlightenment

Applications in secular ethics

Criticisms of the social contract

"A sale," said Rearden slowly, "requires the seller's consent."

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_contract"

This page was last modified on 29 November 2011, at 21:28.

1 Signs of pseudolaw British Constitution Group

High profile pseudolawyers

Law, authority and hucksters

Pseudolaw and conspiracy theories

Debt elimination scams

The cost of pseudolaw

Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw"

This page was last modified on 17 November 2011, at 16:43.

Trouble with accounting identities

Austrian school and free banking proponents

Ignoring Lessons from the US Free Banking Era (1837 to 1864)

Ignoring the original Great Depression (1873–79 or 96)

After the establishment of the Fed

Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve"

This page was last modified on 2 November 2011, at 12:19.

You might also like