No you’ve got to publish it in the Notices section of a major newspaper for it to work.
Also, they can then declare in the Notices section of a major newspaper that they are free of you.
After that, it’s dueling Notices, all the way down.
You know, things like this always make me feel a little better, knowing it isn’t just Americans who have to deal with nutjobs.
These sov cits exist, in several varieties, everywhere. What’s interesting is that a lot of them are in the habit of citing the United States Commercial Code (and sometimes the United States Constitution or other U. S. founding documents) as their authorities.
The legal analysis written by Justice Rooke in the Meads v Meads case (linked by Smapti at post #3 above), which is cited just about every time this subject comes up, is well worth a read (or at least a skim, being 150+ pages long)!
Here it is again: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 18 Sept 2012
Justice Rooke, having gotten sick and fed up with these nutcases, decided to do a full deep dive into the subject, and ended up writing this monumental magnus opus of a historical and legal analysis, with a focus on all the absurd arguments they tend to make, and how judges can best respond to them. He notes in passing that Canadian courts can’t very well make judgements based on American law anyway.
I’ve read that this judgement has gotten international attention in legal circles, and that judges and lawyers around the world have studied it for guidance in how to deal with these sov cit nutcases.
What’s really bizarre is when they do this in other countries.
That’s part of the point! Sov cits and “FOTL” nutcases, worldwide, cite U. S. law, most specifically the U. S. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as their authority. Justice Rooke, writing for a Canadian court, points this out, but it doesn’t matter anyway because their legal cases are nonsense anywhere, even in the U.S.
I’ve seen mentions that courts in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany have all had to deal with their home-grown FOTL types doing this. And the Meads v Meads decision, though based specifically on Canadian law, is fully relevant everywhere.
I was on a panel on sov-cits with Justice Rooke once. He’s a very smart guy. However, I’m sure he never thought, when he was appointed to the Queen’s Bench, that his contribution to world-wide jurisprudence was going to be a scholarly study of legal nutcases.
Someone had to do it!
And indeed it is not uncommon for Australian nutcases, and Trump supporters, to cite the US constitution and Bill of Rights in discussions about an Australian situation. They just read stuff on the interwebs about what The Law says, and don’t stop to think that they are reading a site from another country.
Agreed.
I hope the judge is proud of his contribution. He should be. He did worldwide (or a good part of it anyway) jurisprudence a service here.
I’m confused about giving “trade names” to children.
Would they be known as (for example) Emma™, Ethan™ and Benjamin™ or would that have to wait until they’re emancipated at 18?
It’s a common belief among FOTL whackadoodles that their legal name refers to a corporation that exists independently of their own self, and that by asserting that they are distinct from this corporation, they can offload their tax and other financial obligations onto the corporation which can pay it off by tapping into some mysterious source of money the corporate self has access to because magic.
I don’t know about where you are but around here a trade name is not the same as a trademark, which is what requires the TM superscript.
But given that we are in away-with-the-fairies land anyway, nothing would surprise me.
Has anyone ever tried to turn that around on a sovereign citizen; can I get one of them to paint my house, and when he’s done I tell him to submit the bill to my corporate self?
I believe they usually cite the “No Backsies” clause of Magna Carta as a defense against that one.
Among some, it goes deeper. I cannot speak for Australia, but some FOTLs here in Canada believe that Canada is a private corporation wholly-owned by the United States of America, and so America’s UCC and Constitution are the law of the land in Canada. Of course, they’re not; Canada being completely independent of anybody.
Well that’s just like, your opinion, man.
Well, except for the Queen, who may or may not be a reptilian, but definitely understands and stands under Chapter 39 of Magna Carta irregardless.
An alternative version is that with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the corporation sole of the United Kingdom abandoned the vessel Canada, which is therefore open to being claimed under the admiralty law of salvage.
This is the part that doesn’t make sense. Let’s grant for a moment the preposterous idea that you are distinct from You [TM] the corporate entity. Great. If you want to live in society though - for example, if you want others to respect your property rights - then guess what? You need your straw man corporation to remain in good standing, so you can use it to interact with the rest of the country. In fact, improving the standing of your corporation is extremely important, and if you neglect it, you’re fucked, because it’s not like you can dump You [TM] who is 500,000 in debt and get a fresh You2 [TM] to start over with. So what good is it neglecting your corporation? It’s like letting your car go because “it’s just a vehicle, not my actual legs!” But then being upset that you can’t go drive anywhere.
That’s where you went wrong - trying to apply sense to FOTL arguments is like trying to dress a manatee in black tie.