I just found out about A4V and I’ve researched this online a lot. I heard so many people say that it worked and some say that it didn’t work. But I still haven’t seen anyone that I can trust that proves this works because I would have talk to them in person and see their bills that were paid off.
As for those that say it doesn’t work, unless your an attorney who’s prosecuted a person for doing this and have proof of this. Like your attorney name, case, etc.
Does it work or not? Anyone?
It’s FoTL stuff and does not work. I’m not a lawyer - I simply work on a UK consumer affairs website where we see people attempt this nonsense from time to time.
So while I suspect that there’s no real point in trying to convince the OP, I would urge anyone else reading this to be mindful.
So what does Fruit of the Loom underwear have to do with the subject of the OP?
Freeman of the land. Sovereign citizen. Whiny crybabies who want everything for nothing. People so stupid and crazypants that they get banned on David Icke’s forum.
Uh, yeah, Freeman on The Land. Sorry, to anyone (like me) who deals with this crap on a daily basis it’s an well-known abbreviation. I forget that not everyone encounters these loons.
No, as it’s a bunch of horse manure.
The most comprehensive ruling I’ve seen on the matter comes from Canadian Associate Chief Justice JD Rooke on the whole Freeman on the Land nonsense in 2012. You can read about it here. The A4V stuff is among the many issues covered.
It’s a brilloquacious metaphor, silly. “Fruit” as in “benefits” (as in “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree”, e.g.), “of the Loom” as in, the tangled web we weave.
So Fruit of the Loom means the benefits of the tangled web we weave.
ETA: Or, having just read PaulParkhead’s post: Aha! I thought I understood, but now I understand even better. It’s not “Fruit of the Loom”. It’s “Fruit of the Loon”. So that must actually mean “excremental output of the crazed moon-struck swamp bird”. Got it.
In trying to explain, I think he went overboard in making the whole thing seem legitimate. A freeman of the land or sovereign citizen only wants to be unincorporated when it benefits them. They don’t opt out of all the other benefits of being an actual citizen. It’s only the detriment of paying taxes that they try to get out of. They want something for nothing.
That’s what “accepted for value” is all about, and that’s why we can’t allow that sort of thing. You have in fact consented to be governed by taking part in the system. Yes, it would be nice if you could choose another system instead. But it would not be nice for you to have no system at all, as you’d be dead without contact with the outside world.
Here’s a little gem that gives some insight into their thought:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/a4v.htm
In their hideous misunderstanding of basic contract law, they still fail to understand that there is also criminal law, family law, tort law, etc.
But even assuming that a traffic ticket was a contractual matter between you and the officer, or even in a real adhesion contract from a vendor, a person is not free to use the absence of a price term to assign a “value” of whatever he wants. They cite no court cases or any authority to suggest it is otherwise.
The A4Vers are the same people who believe that if the American flag in the courtroom has a yellow fringe, it’s an Admiralty Court and has no jurisdiction over non-maritime matters.
Just to help the OP find his or her way through Rooke’s huge decision, I’ll mention that the A4V scheme is covered at paragraphs 531-543 (pages 117-120). There are citations to caselaw in the discussion also.
Awesome court decision, I find it remarkable that the Judge went to such lengths to try and explain the gibberish spouted by the defendant in this child support case. I like his evaluation of what he dubs Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”].
If somebody wants to claim that they do not recognize the United States government in its entirety and is willing to essentially live as an outlaw, I can to a certain extent see the logic of their position (without thinking it’s a good idea).
But what I don’t get is the bozos who start citing various laws as proof that they don’t have to obey the law. If they don’t accept the validity of the general authority of the Constitution and the Federal Code, why do they feel that one particular law that they like the sound of (like the Uniform Commercial Code or 28 USC §1333) has any authority? Either the entire legal code is valid or none of it is.
It’s a form of magical thinking. “If only I chant the proper magic words, a spell will occur which will make me fabulously wealthy [by eliminating all my income tax obligations].”
The part that gets me is that if there really was some ‘magical loophole’ in the law freshly discovered, since we NEED taxes to provide for services the vast majority of the citizens want… an amendment to the constitution would just get passed within a few weeks.
One of them is an occasional client of mine. He’s bright enough, but seems unable to put things in perspective. In law, the rubber meets the road when black and white statutes and previous decisions on not necessarily identical fact scenarios have to be applied to a given case. With this fellow the rubber does not meet the road – it bounces off like a Super Ball. He has read a lot of law and political philosophy, but is utterly unable to understand how things work. Very much a literalist. Ever come across a religious person who constantly cites off chapters of the bible, but just does not grasp how it relates to the daily lives of normal people in our present society? Well, this fellow is like that, only in the legal sphere rather than the religious sphere. The fellow saddens me, for despite being smart and friendly, he has tripped just short of the finish line in this one aspect, which has plopped him down into no end of trouble.
The OP asked for a real court case where A4V was rejected by the courts.
He might want to google “Wesley Snipes tax evasion”. Snipes went to
Federal prison for three years for trying to rely on this type of stuff.
Heck the OP can check out our own earlier thread: “Those federal blood-suckers took down Blade!”
Agreed, but that isn’t even the proper question. When someone hears of a magical new defense to something as common as paying a lawful debt, he should look to where it has been successful in the courts. There are obviously no examples of this.
For example, I see of no SCOTUS case where a lawyer slapping the Justices across the face with an erect penis wasn’t a complete and total victory. Can you cite one?