Typing your name in all caps = copyright, and other BS

Factual Questions
1

One of the lists I belong to exists to give support and advice to parents in legal trouble. Someone posted a bunch of “advice” that sounds pretty crackpot to me:

[qupte] if they try to go ahead and plead for you and then find you guilty- they will say- is there any reason i cannot sentence you today? your answer is yes- your honor i still do not understand the nature of the charge. all you say is court record…all the judge says is court record. if he throws you in jail and you appeal- its an automatic reversal…hence you are free.
[/quote]

In subsequent emails he claims that criminal courts are commercial businesses (because the constitution only allows for maritime and commonlaw courts); that driver’s licenses are unconstitutional (because the constitution guarantees the freedom to travel between states); and that social security numbers are optional, and that you can opt out even after you have one by reapplying for one and checking “other” instead of “federal citizen” on the application. He justifies this by saying that we are not citizens of the US, just of our states. Further, he claims that doing so prevents CPS from having any jurisdiction over your family.

To me, this guy sounds like a complete and total loony-bin. So what’s the Straight Dope?

2

Complete and total loony-bin. That’s the Straight Dope.

3

Thank you, Max, but i was hoping for some info I could use to discredit him, as many of the other list members are not only taking him at face value, but THANKING HIM for his advice. I worry that some of them may use his advice in court.

4

I’ll start here.

No one owns a copyright on court documents. They are publicly available.

What does this mean?

5

chula, I think he is saying that your NAME is copyrighted, and so the court must pay to use your name on their documents.

As for the second thing, his comment was:

So, as far as I can tell, he is saying that courts are for-profit businesses and therefore their use of your name falls under copyright laws. For one thing, I wasn’t aware that only for-profit businesses were subject to copyright laws.

6

Well, you could point out that not a single other person in the world believes any of the things he says. That might start them thinking.

Or you could just say all this to a lawyer and tape record the hysterical laughter that results.

7

The judge will enter a “Not Guilty” plea on your behalf and the case will go forward.

8

Thank you, guys. I am starting to see where I can begin to tear his statements apart. Frankly, the things he said were so ludicrous I wasn’t sure what to say. It’s almost like trying to argue with someone who thinks the sky is blue because that’s what color the government’s secret balloons painted it.

9

I typed up a response to this guy, and I am posting it here in hopes that the Teeming Millions would point out any factual errors or logical fallacies on my parts. It would do me no good to point out his inaccuracies if my arguments are incorrect as well.

10

Cessandra, sounds to me like you’ve run into a person who believes in the “sovereign citizen” or “common law courts” movement. Adherents of this group believe that the highest legal authority is at the county level, and deny the validity of state and federal laws. They also believe that at common law, there are only two ways to create binding obligations: by physically injuring someone, or by contract.

As an extension of those beliefs, they deny the validity of statute law as a way to impose liablity, either criminal or civil. They also argue that documents with your name in all caps are not legally binding, since they don’t give your “true, Christian, name”. They also argue that all licences are simply contracts with the state, which can be repudiated, hence the repeated references to the uniform commercial code.

Notable sovereign citizen groups have included the Freemen of Montana and the Republic of Texas separatist movements. Tim McVeigh’s accomplice, Terry Nichols, also seems to have belonged to the movement, according to this link.

It’s all nonsense, of course, and won’t have any effect in courts. However, I’m very doubtful that you’d have any success arguing with this fellow about it.

11

Oh my gosh. How funny. After my husband read the email, he said that this guy “sounds like a nut case. I bet he even thinks Texas can legally secede from the Union anytime we want.” Wait until I tell him that he’s probably right!!

And don’t worry. I am not the least bit concerned about convincing him that he is wrong. Someone on this board once said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach.” I don’t know if he was quoting someone else, but it’s a smart sentiment regardless.

I am just concerned about those who would blindly believe him if no one pointed out how absolutely stupid he sounds. And there are a lot of people like that out there.

12

Right you are. For many, many more arguments of this sort, see:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm
http://www.quatloos.com/Otto_Skinner.htm

The reason these sort of activists are wrong is not, per se, because of the theories and policies they espouse – it’s a free country, and you can have your (wrongheaded) personal interpretation of the Constitution, or Magna Carta, or whatever. And hey, dubious interpretations of the Constitution have been advanced not just by activists, but by legislators and courts (see, e.g., the expansion of the Commerce Clause as justification for federal legislative authority over . . . everything), so just for the sake of argument, let’s assume something kind of fishy did happen in the process of trying to ratify the 16th Amendment.

No, these guys are wrong, and affirmatively bad actors, because they lead people to believe that theories that no court will embrace will, as a factual matter, actually win you acquittal/dismissal of charges/freedom from tax liability/etc. When, as a factual matter, they will invariably lead you to jail or the like. That’s just dishonest or grossly uninformed (and unsophisticated people sometimes do buy into the notion that by spouting the tax protestor or common-law-court theories they’ve been sold, they will, in fact, send the judge reeling, helpless before the undeniable force of the secret arguments they’ve discovered).

When, in reality, a government corrupt enough to conceal all these “true” doctrines is certainly corrupt enough to jail/tax/fine you despite the fact that you discover and blurt out these defenses.

Rather than argue about the correctness of their arcane legal theories, when dealing with people like this I’ve found it more useful to stress cynical realism: "Granted that you are completely correct in your legal theories, can you envision any set of circumstances in which a judge of a federal court, sitting at the head of a massive federal apparatus, and dependent for his livelihood and prestige upon that apparatus, is going to (rule the income tax unconstitutional/grant you a trillion dollar judgment against the UN/etc.)? The response is usually something along the lines of “They should, if they’re not corrupt.” Which is far from “They will, in fact.” Then I wish them luck in their crusade and assure them that the minute they win a case based on their theories, I will most assuredly cite it as precedent in my own tax-nullification action.

13

Cessandra, I know it sounds funny, but I would advocate caution. Some of these folks are harmless, but others can cause a lot of trouble by filing vexatious bogus documents with the courts and the IRS, naming persons with whom they’ve had disagreements. Even though the documents are bogus, they can cause the victims a lot of trouble.

For example, one tactic is to file a document with the IRS alleging that the filer has paid a large sum of money to the victim as income. Since the victim naturally didn’t report this non-existent income, the IRS has to look into it and audit the victim. Even if the matter is cleared up, it’s quite a hassle.

Another favourite tactic is to try to petition the victim into involuntary bankruptcy, or to file liens alleging the victim owes them thousands of dollars. Again, it will take a lot of time and effort for the victim to clear it up, and it could have significant effects on the victim’s credit ratings.

There was a case recently in Milwaukee where a sovereign citizen was convicted of criminal charges for using these tactics against county officials who had the uneviable task of instituting tax foreclosure proceedings against the sovereign citizen in question. See this article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

I would be careful.

14

Ew…