Legal name fraud - the TRUTH! (WTF?)

[Mangetout]

I drove past a large billboard like this yesterday (near Southampton, England):
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8a3uuWszeZk/hqdefault.jpg

What the heck is that about? I tried googling it, and got some apparently relevant search results, but could not make sense of what the said.

[Giles]

My guess is that it’s the people at legalnamefraud.com. No, I haven’t read through it to understand their arguments.

[GaryM]

Looks like they have Sovereign’s on the land in Great Briton too.

[Mangetout]

@Giles

My guess is that it’s the people at legalnamefraud.com. No, I haven’t read through it to understand their arguments.

Yeah, that’s the thing I found, but I don’t understand their point. I already knew there is a difference between my name any me as a physical person. It’s bloody obvious.

Is it that they think there is some clever semantic hack that makes them immune to prevailing laws?

[Kimera757]

@Mangetout

Yeah, that’s the thing I found, but I don’t understand their point. I already knew there is a difference between my name any me as a physical person. It’s bloody obvious.

Is it that they think there is some clever semantic hack that makes them immune to prevailing laws?

Yes. There’s groups like that in Canada, and they believe that taxes owing are conveniently owed to their Social Insurance Number, but they (the physical person) get to keep the money.

Here is an incredibly long takedown of this sort of nonsense by a judge: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAObWVhZHMgdnMgbWVhZHMAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

I’m sure there’s a Coles Notes version of that somewhere. (I actually read the whole thing. Illuminating, sometimes funny, but very long.)

[guizot]

And to think some poor souls live long, happy lives without ever knowing a thing about this.

[PatrickLondon]

Isn’t this the same sort of thing as those people who think you can get out of paying a bill by writing some sort of mumbo-jumbo on it (which amounts to no more, if anything at all, than “IOU”)?

[running_coach]

@PatrickLondon

Isn’t this the same sort of thing as those people who think you can get out of paying a bill by writing some sort of mumbo-jumbo on it (which amounts to no more, if anything at all, than “IOU”)?

“Accepted for value” “A4V”.
Not even an IOU, it’s “you can get the money from the secret bank account that was established by the government when I was born that is part of the bankruptcy in 1933 when the US became a corporation and used it’s citizens as collateral. Anyway, you can’t touch me, a human person, because the money is owed by the entity that is my birth certificate.”

[watchwolf49]

@GaryM

Looks like they have Sovereign’s on the land in Great Briton too.

Right, but with a twist … there actually IS a Sovereign there. Twist this just a little more and we have everyone in the UK as chattel of the Queen, and that’s why you never see a gold fringe around the British flag.

I’d be impressed except these folks are illiterate:

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

[GaryM]

@watchwolf49

Right, but with a twist … there actually IS a Sovereign there. Twist this just a little more and we have everyone in the UK as chattel of the Queen, and that’s why you never see a gold fringe around the British flag.

I’d be impressed except these folks are illiterate:

I was thinking of both Sovereigns when I wrote that! There’s probably a better term, but that’s what they seem to call themselves in the US.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@running_coach

“Accepted for value” “A4V”.
Not even an IOU, it’s "you can get the money from the secret bank account that was established by the government when I was born

Is that what that’s supposed to mean?

I thought the idea was, someone presents you with a piece of paper that has some ink on it, and you respond by saying “I hereby indicate that you have given me a piece of paper, and I hereby accept it for what it’s worth: a piece of paper with some ink on it. I guess it was an offer? Well, I don’t accept the offer; I merely accept the piece of paper with some ink on it. Thanks ever so very much for the piece of paper with some ink on it! Truly, I’d report it as income, if the value happened to be at least a penny! I’ll now hand YOU a piece of paper with some ink on it!”

[running_coach]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

**Is that what that’s supposed to mean?
**
I thought the idea was, someone presents you with a piece of paper that has some ink on it, and you respond by saying “I hereby indicate that you have given me a piece of paper, and I hereby accept it for what it’s worth: a piece of paper with some ink on it. I guess it was an offer? Well, I don’t accept the offer; I merely accept the piece of paper with some ink on it. Thanks ever so very much for the piece of paper with some ink on it! Truly, I’d report it as income, if the value happened to be at least a penny! I’ll now hand YOU a piece of paper with some ink on it!”

From Cecil’s column.

Sovereign citizens contend that in presenting you with a tax bill or traffic ticket, the government is simply making you an offer. By responding with “accepted for value” you’re making a counteroffer. If the government doesn’t make a counter-counteroffer, you’re off the hook. This is based on a bizarre reading of the Uniform Commercial Code, which sovereign citizens for some reason regard as holy writ.
The counteroffer you’re supposedly making is that whatever debt you owe should be charged against the secret account maintained on your behalf by the U.S. Treasury. The premise is that in going off the gold standard in 1933, the U.S. switched from real money to fictional money. As collateral for its worthless cash, the feds pledged the future labor value of U.S. citizens to foreign investors. This value is maintained in the secret account created when you, or rather the fictional person established in your name, receives a social security number at birth. In essence, by writing ”accepted for value” on a debt notice, you’re telling the government to put it on your tab.

[Little_Nemo]

Is there a grand unified theory behind this movement? Do the sovereign citizens in America and Britain and Canada acknowledge they live in three separate countries, each with its own body of laws? Or do they feel there’s some single secret supreme law that is in effect in all three countries that gives them international immunity? Do they feel it applies everywhere? Or are there countries which sovereign citizens feel have enforceable laws?

[Asympotically_fat]

@Little_Nemo

Is there a grand unified theory behind this movement? Do the sovereign citizens in America and Britain and Canada acknowledge they live in three separate countries, each with its own body of laws? Or do they feel there’s some single secret supreme law that is in effect in all three countries that gives them international immunity? Do they feel it applies everywhere? Or are there countries which sovereign citizens feel have enforceable laws?

I think the unifying aspect is common law.

[Kimera757]

@Little_Nemo

Is there a grand unified theory behind this movement? Do the sovereign citizens in America and Britain and Canada acknowledge they live in three separate countries, each with its own body of laws? Or do they feel there’s some single secret supreme law that is in effect in all three countries that gives them international immunity? Do they feel it applies everywhere? Or are there countries which sovereign citizens feel have enforceable laws?

Because Canada and US law have some British roots, they often rely on the Magna Carta. Sometimes they talk about divine law (Christian or not). Sometimes it’s Roman law, Admiralty law, or “Moorish law”.

[guizot]

@Kimera757

Because Canada and US law have some British roots, they often rely on the Magna Carta. Sometimes they talk about divine law (Christian or not). Sometimes it’s Roman law, Admiralty law, or “Moorish law”.

Whichever, they seem to be completely unable to comprehend that any law is only as valid as the society in which it is housed will allow it to be. They fundamentally don’t seem to understand that laws are man-made, social constructions.

[crowmanyclouds]

Everything ya need to be almost entirely certain this is Sovereign Citizen nonsense,

i am ‘your name’ which is accepted as being ‘YOUR NAME’… ‘joinder’ achieved

‘your name’, ‘YOUR NAME’, 'joinder’

Mangetout of the family Straight Dope, should you proceed . . . enjoy your trip through the looking glass!

CMC fnord!

[JRDelirious]

@GaryM

I was thinking of both Sovereigns when I wrote that! There’s probably a better term, but that’s what they seem to call themselves in the US.

The popular terms are “Sovereign Citizen” and “Freeman of the Land”.

And in both cases they need the pointed boot of reality applied to their fundament…al premises.

[crowmanyclouds]

Should’ve added, a map Meads v. Meads should you lose your way!

CMC fnord!

[AskNott]

Now, if I accept all that legalnamefraud.com stuff as true, where does that leave me? If my birth certificate tells me my governmentally accepted name is Elbow Humblegrum, and I disavow that, I guess I could go by the name my parents first called me, which is Shutup Damnit. Maybe it’s not a problem that millions of other people have that same name, now that we gave up our Legal Names.

So, do I drive a car titled to Elbow, with a driver’s license issued to “him”? I certainly can’t get a new DL without a birth certificate. If I’m pulled over by a cop, like the guy in the LNF video, and I tell him I’m Shutup Damnit, and I have no ID, I’m definitely going to jail.