This article is about the pseudolegal theory. For other uses, see pale yellow homo ( disambiguation ) Strawman theory ( besides called the strawman illusion ) is a pseudolegal conspiracy theory prevailing in versatile antigovernment and tax demonstrator movements such as autonomous citizens, freemen on the nation, and the redemption drift. The theory holds that an individual has two persona, one of flesh and the other a classify legal personality ( i.e., the “ scarecrow ” ). The estimate is that an individual ‘s debts, liabilities, taxes and legal responsibilities belong to the straw man rather than the forcible individual. [ 1 ] The straw man theory is recognized in jurisprudence as a scam ; the FBI considers anyone promoting it a likely fraudster, [ 2 ] and the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) considers it a frivolous argument and fines people who claim it on their tax returns. [ 3 ] [ 4 ]
history [edit ]
Strawman theory traces its origins to the ancient Roman legal drill of capitis deminutio ( “ decrease of head ” ), a term used in Roman trials for the extinguishment of a person ‘s early legal capacity. Capitis deminutio minima meant a person ceased to belong to a particular class, without loss of familiarity or citizenship. Capitis deminutio media involved loss of citizenship and family, but not shore leave. Capitis deminutio maxima involve loss of family, citizenship and liberty ( i.e., a slave or a prisoner of war ). [ 5 ] Strawman theory normally takes the term capitis deminutio, spells it “ Capitis Diminutio, ” and claims capitis diminutio maxima was represented by an individual ‘s name being written in capital letters. This led to the estimate that individuals had a branch legal personality nowadays called a “ front man ”. [ 6 ]
Reading: Strawman theory – Wikipedia
Assertions [edit ]
The theory holds that an individual has two character. One of them is a physical, tangible human being, and the other is the legal person, frequently referred to as a legal fabrication. When a child is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the parents apply for a Social Security issue. Sovereigns say the government uses that give birth certificate to set up a secret Treasury history which it funds with an sum ranging from $ 600,000 to $ 20 million, depending on the particular autonomous belief system. Hence, every neonate ‘s rights are split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the corporate shell score. [ 1 ] Proponents of the theory believe the tell is found on the parturition security. Because many certificates show all capitals to spell out a baby ‘s list, JOHN DOE ( under the Strawman theory ) is the name of the “ straw world, ” and John Doe is the baby ‘s “ veridical ” list. As the child grows, most legal documents will contain capital letters, which means that his state-issued driver ‘s license, his marriage license, his car registration, his criminal woo records, his cable television receiver bill, correspondence from the IRS, and so forth, pertain to his scarecrow and not his autonomous identity. [ 1 ] In world, the use of all capital letters is typically done to make sealed statements clear and blatant, although this is not constantly the case. [ 7 ] The main use of scarecrow theory is in escaping and denying debts, liabilities and legal duty. Tax protesters, “ commercial redemption ” and “ get out of debt free ” scams claim that one ‘s debts and taxes are the duty of the front man and not of the real person. They back this claim by misreading the legal definition of person [ 8 ] and misunderstanding the distinction between a juridicial person [ 9 ] and a natural person. [ 10 ] In accept legal hypothesis there is a difference between what is known as a natural person and that of a corporate person. A corporate personhood applies to clientele, charities, governments and early recognized organisations. Courts recognize human beings as ‘persons ‘, not as a legal fiction joined to a human body and rake human being but as one and the like. [ 11 ] They have never recognized a right to distance oneself from one ‘s person, or the ability to opt out of personhood. [ 12 ] Believers of the theory besides extend it to law and legal responsibilities, claiming that only their scarecrow is required to adhere to statutory laws. They besides claim that legal proceedings are taken against strawmen quite than persons and when one appears in court they appear as representing their front man. The justification for this is the false notion that governments can not force anybody to do anything. A scarecrow is consequently created which the adherent believes he or she is loose to command. Proponents cite a misinterpretation of a passage in chapter 39 of King John ‘s Magna Carta stating in depart that, “ no freeman will be seized, dispossessed of his property, or harmed except by the law of the nation ”. [ 13 ] Freemen believe that separating from their scarecrow or refusing to be identified as such enables escape from their legal liabilities and responsibilities. This is typically attempted by denying they are a ‘person ‘ in the same way as their scarecrow, or by writing their list in non-standard ways, using crimson ink, and placing feel prints on court documents. [ 14 ] The habit of thumbprints and signatures in bolshevik ink, in particular, is meant to distinguish “ pulp and blood ” people from the “ front man ”, since blacken and blue inks are believed to indicate corporations. [ 15 ] A variation of this estimate is found in the “ legal name fraud ” motion, which believes that birth certificates give the state of matter legal possession of a personal diagnose and that refusing to use this list removes oneself from the state ‘s authority and a court ‘s legal power. [ 16 ] [ 17 ] One scheme, notably advocated by sovereign citizen theorist David Wynn Miller, involves adding punctuation – typically hyphens and colons – to one ‘s mention : Miller would write his mention as :David-Wynn: Miller or David-Wynn: Miller. [ 18 ]
Read more: A Man Quotes Maritime Law To Avoid Ticket
Judge Norman K. Moon found such tactics an improbable argument in 2013 when an individual named Brandon Gravatt tried to overturn a drug conviction and get out of prison. The case was summarily dismissed by the court. [ 19 ] In 2010, Canadian annoying litigant David Kevin Lindsay appealed his 2008 conviction and sentencing on five counts of failing to file income tax returns, on the flat coat that he was not a “ person ” as defined by the Income Tax Act because he had opted out of “ personhood ” 1996 which made him “ a wide liability free will flesh and blood surviving world ”. The court rejected his claims, commenting that “ The ordinary sense of the news ‘ person ‘ in the ( Income Tax Act ) is without ambiguity. It is open that Parliament intended the parole in its broadest sense. ” [ 20 ] In 2012, Associate Justice J.D. Rooke of the Court of Queen ‘s Bench of Alberta addressed the front man hypothesis in contingent in his Meads v. Meads decision, concluding that “ ‘Double/split person ‘ schemes have no legal effect. These schemes have no footing in law. There is entirely one legal identity that attaches to a person. If a person wishes to add a legal ‘layer ‘ to themselves, then a pot is the proper set about. ” [ 21 ] It is impossible to dodge the law by insisting that an individual is different from his or her person. If a motor hotel can establish a person ‘s identity, regardless of consent or cooperation, the court will engage in proceedings and sanctions against the individual. This is due to the legal principle known as Idem sonans ( Latin for “ sounding the same ” ) which states that similar looking names are just as valid in referring to a person. [ 22 ] The earliest legal precedent is R v Davis in the United Kingdom in 1851. [ 23 ]
Read more: A Man Quotes Maritime Law To Avoid Ticket
If two names spelt differently necessarily sound alike, the court may, as topic 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 .
relevant cases [edit ]
| Case | Person involved | Case notes | Court Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaeger v. Dubuque County (1995) | Raymond Jaeger (plaintiff) | Raymond Jaeger filed a $2M lawsuit against Iowa state law enforcement & Department of Natural Resources, alleging illegal search and seizure. The ruling was made in response to a motion to strike the presented active defense. | “The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status…Jaeger’s motions to strike are denied as to improper capitalization.”[24] |
| United States v. Washington (1996) | Kurt Washington (defendant) | Kurt Washington was charged with two counts of tax evasion. As part of the proceedings, he filed a motion to dismiss the charges on numerous grounds, including that the person charged was a strawman. | “…the defendant contends that the Indictment must be dismissed because “KURT WASHINGTON,” spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is “Kurt Washington.” This contention is baseless.”[25] |
| United States v. Furman (2001) | William Michael Furman (appellant) | William Furman was charged with two counts of conspiracy related to a scheme to defraud a bank and launder money. After being convicted, Furman filed an appeal based on the strawman theory, alleging both a literal misspelling of his name and the “improper” capitalizations typically seen in such arguments. | “Here, the difference between “Micheal” and “Michael” is a mere transposition of letters with presumably little (if any) auditory significance, and the difference between “WILLIAM MICHAEL FURMAN” and “William Michael Furman” is a mere change of case with absolutely no auditory significance.”[26] |
| State of Colorado v. Drew (2010) | Donald James Drew (appellant) | Donald Drew was previously convicted after pleading guilty to first degree kidnapping and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Drew then filed a motion to vacate that conviction. | “The core of defendant’s argument on appeal is that (1) he was born Donald James Drew, and the person charged in this matter was DONALD JAMES DREW; (2) the capitalization of the name created a “Strawman/Stramineous Homo/Ens Legis/ Artificial Person” (artificial person); (3) the artificial person was convicted; (4) he has been incarcerated as surety chattel or security for the artificial person; and (5) he has been denied due process. “Claims so premised are patently frivolous and without merit.”[27] |
| Meads v. Meads (2012) | Dennis Larry Meads (litigant) | Dennis Larry Meads, involved in a contentious divorce case, detailed a “contract” between himself (styled as “::Dennis-Larry: Meads::”) and his “strawman” (styled as “DENNIS LARRY MEADS”), stipulating that his spousal and child support obligations should be paid by using the money from the strawman’s purported secret $100 billion dollar public treasury bank account. | “It is very unfortunate that any person would be so gullible as to believe that free money can be obtained by these theatrics, but nevertheless some, like Mr. Meads, appear unable to resist the temptation of wealth without obligation. (…) Mr. Meads is Mr. Meads in all his physical or imaginary aspects. He would experience and obtain the same effect and success if he appeared in court and selectively donned and removed a rubber Halloween mask which portrays the appearance of another person, asserting at this or that point that the mask’s person is the one liable to Ms. Meads. “[21] |
