# Legal name fraud - the TRUTH! (WTF?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 28, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886 "2016-05-28T13:00:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/21 "2016-05-28T17:45:15Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > Now, if I accept all that [legalnamefraud.com](http://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\*\*. Only if you agree to it. 😃 You don’t even need a DL in Elbow’s name. You don’t need a DL at all. You’re not bound by any man-made law unless you agree to be. (That’s the whole “creating joinder” thing) ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/22 "2016-05-28T17:51:02Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > I think the unifying aspect is common law. I think the unifying aspect is rampant insanity. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/23 "2016-05-28T18:36:42Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > I think the unifying aspect is common law. So this nonsense doesn’t apply in countries that use a civil law system? Sovereign citizens acknowledge that the government of France, for example, has a legitimate authority to enact laws, collect taxes, and arrest people? > [@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”. Or maybe we’ll use Japan as an example. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/24 "2016-05-28T18:49:03Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > . > > 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. Apparently if you get pulled over and the police officer, looking at your drivers licence, says “Elbow Humblegrum, is that you?”, you’re supposed to answer “no, that’s a drivers’s licence” Yeah, right. It’s going to be “You’re fuckin’ nicked sonny” ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/25 "2016-05-28T19:00:55Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > 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. Yeah, those are the magic phrases I was trying to remember. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/26 "2016-05-28T19:39:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So this nonsense doesn’t apply in countries that use a civil law system? Sovereign citizens acknowledge that the government of France, for example, has a legitimate authority to enact laws, collect taxes, and arrest people? From what I’ve read the underlying idea of many of these people is that ‘common law’ (or at least what they perceive common law to be) is the true law and statutory law is a contract that can be refused/opted out of. Of course the real commonality here is a kind of pseudo-legal magical thinking and YMMV, but the ideas of these groups wouldn’t carry over well to countries without legal systems heavily influenced by common law. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/27 "2016-05-28T21:37:23Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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!” I knew this whole thing reminded me of something from my childhood, and your explanation made the connection for me: [www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/28 "2016-05-29T02:52:45Z")
Lewis Carroll’s White Knight explained the names of things and the names of names in _Through The Looking Glass_: > [@](#): > > ``` > ‘You are sad,’ the Knight said in an anxious tone: ‘let me sing you a song to comfort you.’ > > ‘Is it very long?’ Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day. > > ‘It’s long,’ said the Knight, ‘but very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it— either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else— ’ > > ‘Or else what?’ said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause. > > ‘Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called “Haddock’s Eyes.”’ > > ‘Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested. > > ‘No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. ‘That’s what the name is called. The name really is “ The Aged Aged Man.”’ > > ‘Then I ought to have said “That’s what the song is called”?’ Alice corrected herself. > > ‘No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called “Ways and Means ”: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!’ > > ‘Well, what is the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered. > > ‘I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. ‘The song really is “A-sitting On A Gate”: and the tune’s my own invention.’ > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/29 "2016-05-29T02:58:09Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. If you can’t understand it, that probably means you understand it. (Didn’t somebody say something like that about quantum physics? Was it Feynman? Or maybe Wolfgang Pauli, of “not even wrong” fame?) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/30 "2016-05-29T03:19:58Z")
> [@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? In the United States, they are fond of citing the Uniform Commercial Code, as **Cecil** has pointed out (see Post #12 above). Interestingly, as Rooke pointed out in Meads v Meads, even in Canada they are fond of citing the UCC along with various finer points of the U. S. Constitution. :dubious: I wonder if they do that in England and elsewhere too. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/31 "2016-05-29T03:48:47Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > In the United States, they are fond of citing the Uniform Commercial Code, as **Cecil** has pointed out (see Post #12 above). Interestingly, as Rooke pointed out in Meads v Meads, even in Canada they are fond of citing the UCC along with various finer points of the U. S. Constitution. :dubious: I wonder if they do that in England and elsewhere too. That’s the part that gets me. If these guys were making some kind of anarchy argument, I could at least see where they were coming from; like an argument that they’re not morally bound by an authority that they didn’t consent to. But when they start citing laws and declaring these laws place them beyond the reach of the law, their arguments aren’t even self-consistent. If you’re outside the legal system, then the legal system can’t do anything to you - including placing outside of the legal system. A law that says laws have no effect is self-negating. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/32 "2016-05-29T04:02:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the part that gets me. If these guys were making some kind of anarchy argument, I could at least see where they were coming from; like an argument that they’re not morally bound by an authority that they didn’t consent to. > > But when they start citing laws and declaring these laws place them beyond the reach of the law, their arguments aren’t even self-consistent. If you’re outside the legal system, then the legal system can’t do anything to you - including placing outside of the legal system. A law that says laws have no effect is self-negating. They consider all interactions with government(including obeying statutes) to be an offer to do business. (That’s why they cite the UCC, it’s contract law.) Rejecting that offer is how they claim, for example, they can drive without a license. Accepting the offer binds them to follow that law(creating joinder). ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/33 "2016-05-29T04:31:48Z")
I posted [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19311492&postcount=253) in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=666038) regarding sovereign citizens: > [@Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/257): > > …What these “sovereign citizens” seem to want is to basically be [outlaws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw), in the original sense of the word. > > Per the link, historically, being declared an outlaw was one of the most extreme punishments in pre-modern legal systems. An outlaw was literally outside the protection of the law, so anybody could rob or kill them without any legal repercussions. These so-called sovereign citizens only seem to think about the advantages of being outside the law, such as not having to pay taxes. They don’t seem to think about the disadvantages of being outside the law. Of course, the government and the courts are not going to allow someone to be able to declare themselves outside the law, so this is all moot, but I wonder if these sovereign citizens have really thought about the implications of what they are asking for. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/34 "2016-05-29T06:01:32Z")
> [@robby](#): > > Of course, the government and the courts are not going to allow someone to be able to declare themselves outside the law, so this is all moot, but I wonder if these sovereign citizens have really thought about the implications of what they are asking for. “Gun nut” intersects with “sovereign citizen” to a certain extent (as in the “sovereign citizen” circle is almost entirely inside the “gun nuts” circle on the Venn diagram). I’m sure they’re all convinced that they have plenty of protection all by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/35 "2016-05-29T09:11:11Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > They consider all interactions with government(including obeying statutes) to be an offer to do business. (That’s why they cite the UCC, it’s contract law.) Rejecting that offer is how they claim, for example, they can drive without a license. > Accepting the offer binds them to follow that law(creating joinder). And how exactly is refusing to cooperate supposed to work? These idiots need to imagine a real situation that’s taking place outside the legal system. When a mugger comes up, points a gun at you, and demands all your money, he’s not seeking to open a negotiation with you. And you don’t get to reject his offer. But the sovereign citizens want to have it both ways. They want to be free to refuse to acknowledge any legal authority. But they want that legal authority to keep obeying the law the sovereign citizen is refusing to acknowledge. Maybe robby has the right idea. Sovereign citizens should be allowed to withdraw from the legal system. They won’t have to pay taxes and fill out any paperwork. But anyone who commits a crime against a sovereign citizen will face no legal repercussions. Let’s see how long the sovereign citizen movement lasts. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/36 "2016-05-29T09:29:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And how exactly is refusing to cooperate supposed to work? > > These idiots need to imagine a real situation that’s taking place outside the legal system. When a mugger comes up, points a gun at you, and demands all your money, he’s not seeking to open a negotiation with you. And you don’t get to reject his offer. > > But the sovereign citizens want to have it both ways. They want to be free to refuse to acknowledge any legal authority. But they want that legal authority to keep obeying the law the sovereign citizen is refusing to acknowledge. > > Maybe robby has the right idea. Sovereign citizens should be allowed to withdraw from the legal system. They won’t have to pay taxes and fill out any paperwork. But anyone who commits a crime against a sovereign citizen will face no legal repercussions. > > Let’s see how long the sovereign citizen movement lasts. It’s kinda like a reverse ponzi scheme - instead of the scam collapsing all at once when there isn’t a greater fool - these idiots are “disappeared” one by one after the judicial system has had enough of them. I had an attorney that had one as a client and the exasperation he felt was palpable. He really was trying to help the guy, but his client just refused to believe him and kept filing frivolous motions. It really sad as they all seem to really believe this stuff - and no amount of logic seems to persuade them. Only cold hard realities of losing your house or ending up in prison (assuming they commit a crime - just believing this stuff isn’t an issue if you don’t break the law) will probably make them see the light. I don’t think it will ever die out. We seem to have a steady supply of stupid people that believe in conspiracy theories and fall for scams - and they come from all walks of life. I believe Chelsea’s father in law fell for a version of the 419 scam not once, but twice. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/37 "2016-05-29T20:41:33Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > “Gun nut” intersects with “sovereign citizen” to a certain extent (as in the “sovereign citizen” circle is almost entirely inside the “gun nuts” circle on the Venn diagram). I’m sure they’re all convinced that they have plenty of protection all by themselves. This makes it interesting within the UK context, as guns aren’t so readily available here, and one certainly can’t make a show of collecting/hoarding them. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/38 "2016-05-29T23:35:57Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > Now, if I accept all that [legalnamefraud.com](http://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. As long as you’re traveling, rather than driving, you’re in the clear. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/39 "2016-05-30T01:19:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Maybe robby has the right idea. Sovereign citizens should be allowed to withdraw from the legal system. They won’t have to pay taxes and fill out any paperwork. But anyone who commits a crime against a sovereign citizen will face no legal repercussions. > > Let’s see how long the sovereign citizen movement lasts. Not necessarily a good plan. What **jayjay** said: > [@jayjay](#): > > “Gun nut” intersects with “sovereign citizen” to a certain extent (as in the “sovereign citizen” circle is almost entirely inside the “gun nuts” circle on the Venn diagram). I’m sure they’re all convinced that they have plenty of protection all by themselves. And they might indeed – at least here in guns-for-all United States. What you’ll get is self-selected groups of vigilantes “protecting” themselves and one another. Hypothetical? Not hardly. See: Bundy, Cliven, Nevada, 2014. These things tend not to end well (depending on one’s POV). A bit tangential, but of relevant interest: In case anyone reading this thread hasn’t noticed yet, I have a nearby thread in which we discuss the extent to which various judges’ decisions, in cases like these, are _internationally_ influential. By means of [this link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=794280) I hereby create joinder therewith. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886/40 "2016-05-30T04:27:19Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Not necessarily a good plan. I wasn’t seriously calling for a program of mass murder. But if it came to that, I don’t think gun ownership would be as much a factor as some people think. To state what should be an obvious truth, carrying a gun does not make you invulnerable. I know everyone is going to say that’s obvious and doesn’t need to be said but many people give that truth lip service and then act as if they believed in some form of gun-related invulnerability. Let’s imagine there’s a guy named John Q. Sovereign. Under the Robby Nemo Act of 2016, he’s declared his independence of the legal system; he has no obligation to American laws and he is outside their protection. And, by some means, this is readily discernible to other people. John is also a gun owner and is always armed whenever he travels outside his home. How do John’s guns protect him? Sure, if somebody stops John and threatens him, he has the opportunity to pull out one of his guns and use it. But suppose somebody sees John out traveling one day and, acting out of a general grudge against sovereign citizens, pulls out their own gun and shoots John. John doesn’t have superpowers. He’s got normal human reactions. He’s not going to be able to see that somebody is pulling out their gun, respond by pulling out his own gun, and shoot the other person before they’re able to shoot him. Instead we’re assuming people have equivalent reaction times and the person who draws first, wins the race and shoots their opponent. So the only way John’s guns can protect him from getting shot is if he uses them pre-emptively and shoots everyone who he thinks might possibly be planning on shooting him before they have a chance to act. John essentially goes around shooting everyone he sees. Now as a sovereign citizen, he doesn’t face any legal sanction if he chooses to do this. But it’s the kind of possibility that prompted that other guy’s reaction of shooting all sovereign citizens on sight. John’s shoot-first policy might protect him in the short term. But it’s not going to take long before people decide it’s unacceptable and set out to solve the problem. People are not just going to shoot John on sight - they’re going to go hunting for John and plan on ways to ambush him before he sees them. As I said, John doesn’t have superpowers - even if he has a few successes, he’s going to lose this kind of contest. And the people who shoot John face no legal penalty for doing so because of John’s self-declared status. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-name-fraud-the-truth-wtf/755886.md?page=3)