The Strawman Illusion

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^Page 3 of what now? I just went through this thread and I still don't know what you're referring to...

[vanlose kid]

Vanlose, that was incredibly well written. But I feel like I agree with all of that and I started this thread agreeing with it, too. I also feel like you're trying to get me to agree that -- what? We're all ruled without our consent? Amen. That the entire edifice of human lawfare is semantics at it's worst, and literally fatal bullshit? Cheers. I am with you on all of that.

What I cannot escape is the Gnosis that all this rules-based skullduggery is doomed, a dead end. If we manage to find smoking guns and loopholes, those glitches will be fixed by people who don't play by their own rules, never have, never will. You know?

It's definitely my Kali Yuga baby bias speaking, but Twitter is more important than anything that happened in Britain or the Vatican hundreds of years ago. The power balance will not be shifted by a lineage of legalese from the Middle Ages, you know? That material is interesting but there's no utility.

Of course, the same could be said for anything we discuss here.

no, man. i ain't argumentizing with you at all, nor trying to get you to agree with anything. nothing against you neither.

just wanted to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

take the grand jury thing, it's not something that happened 100s of years ago. up to around the thirties runaway grand juries were common and it seems americans were either better educated or had a better grasp of their rights, or both. it's there. it's part of the law now. (the fact that they call it a "runaway" grand jury tells you how much they don't like it.)

what i'm saying is that there are ways and means for redress and they're not hidden. it's just that nobody seem to know they're there, or to care.

also, having been born into servitude and the prospect of knowing that my children will be born into servitude with no say kind of bugs me.

as for the rules-based skullduggery, yes i agree, as in, i can see your point, and no, i don't agree entirely.

the thing about the rules is that, there's the basic set: bare bones constitution, it's general, broad, neither left nor rightwing, and everyone has it (at least theoretically) handy. everyone can agree on that.

then there's everything else. now, if it is within the constitution to abolish all the other stuff that negates it, and the goombahs who put it there, and you can get people to see that and raise a ruckus, you don't need no smoking gun -- or even better, the fact that all the other stuff does away with the constitution is the smoking gun.

my two cents.

peace.

ps: and i do think part of the reason why the freeman movement (or parts of it) is getting so much attention is so as to draw eyes away from or pre-emptively debunk what i just laid out above. -- i mean why go through the trouble of trying to solve e.g. 9/11 at all, when you can just run the entire apparatus out of town?

i even think -- though i can't say for sure 'cause sometimes he gets way cryptic -- that that's something even nathan28 (from what i can glean out of his comment above) would agree with.

*

edit: mistakes.

[Wombaticus Rex]

why go through the trouble of trying to solve e.g. 9/11 at all, when you can just run the entire apparatus out of town?

Because the next apparatus will be built and controlled by the same power blocs who controlled the last one. I hate to be such a relentless cynic about this, but how would it play out any other way?

Money, resources, guns. Intelligence networks and family ties. Technology, infrastructure, land. These mundane, unofficial, real world factors shape our system more than laws ever did. It's not like the bad guys just go away.

I agree that our legal system is a lie, but I think the belief we can build a just one is an even bigger lie.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Relevance: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ial_c.html

[eyeno]

This lady wrote a book about it named How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash - Confiscatory Agency Known To Man. It is also available as an audio book torrent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHZTjTmr ... re=related

[Joe Hillshoist]

why go through the trouble of trying to solve e.g. 9/11 at all, when you can just run the entire apparatus out of town?

Because the next apparatus will be built and controlled by the same power blocs who controlled the last one. I hate to be such a relentless cynic about this, but how would it play out any other way?

Money, resources, guns. Intelligence networks and family ties. Technology, infrastructure, land. These mundane, unofficial, real world factors shape our system more than laws ever did. It's not like the bad guys just go away.

I agree that our legal system is a lie, but I think the belief we can build a just one is an even bigger lie.

Don't want to go all meta on you but... we can build wtf we want, and while maybe a just legal system isn't something that can happen a legal system that can be used well to limit injustice is.

If enough people are prepared to engage with the process.

And in that sense twitter isn't more important than anything that happened years ago either, its just as important tho cos its another tool that can be used limit injustice. And like the trend of these tools that are capable of limiting injustice, and that have developed over the last 800 yrs Twitter enables greater engagement and gives ordinary people a better chance of challenging the power balance.

Its only more important cos it is here now and may give us unexpected advantages (if we engage with and use it fully, I don't even own a mobile so that shoots me down in flames), but asll the others are useful tools too.

We know the pricks don''t play by their rules, but if we claim the rules as our own we can mitigate the damage they do and have good meaningful lives in the process. Or at least try.


Sorry just butting in. This is quite interesting tho.

[vanlose kid]

^ ^
good stuff joe.

now this, for the record.

*

Appendix T

Revocation of Birth Certificate


Reader's Notes:



FROM: John Q. Doe
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE

TO: Registry of Vital Records
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
c/o general delivery
Boston 02111/tdc
MASSACHUSETTS STATE

TO: Social Security Administration
Office of the Commissioner
c/o general delivery
Baltimore 21235/tdc
MARYLAND STATE


NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT
AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION


California State/Republic )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
Marin County )


PREAMBLE

I, John Q. Doe, being natural born in Massachusetts a male human being, now living in Marin County, California Republic, as a Citizen in the California Republic, do hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them. Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:

I, the undersigned, a natural born free Sovereign Citizen in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, hereby affirm, declare and give notice:

1. That I am competent to testify to the matters herein; and further,

2. That I have personal knowledge of my status and of the facts and evidence stated herein; and further,

3. That all the facts stated herein are not hearsay but true and correct, and admissible as evidence, if not rebutted; and further,

4. That I, John Q. Doe, am of lawful age and competent; I am a natural born free Sovereign Citizen now living in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, in fact, by right of heritage, a Citizen inhabiting the California Republic, protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Act of 1849, the original Constitution of California (1849), the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble; and as such I retain all my fundamental, unalienable rights granted by God in positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and binding rights upon myself and my parentage, this day and for all time; and further,

5. That this document has been prepared, witnessed and filed because the State of Massachusetts holds the position that there are no statutory provisions to rescind a Birth Certificate, nor any trust or contractual obligations derived therefrom, and because there is no other remedy available to me At Law by which I can declare and enforce my right to be free from State enfranchisement and the benefits therefrom; and further,

6. That, on my birthday, ___ / ___ / ___, I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts to my parents, James F. Doe and Jane M. (Smith) Doe, who were both under the misconception that they were required to secure a Certificate of Birth on my behalf, and they did obtain the same; and further,

7. That my parents were not aware that, at the Common Law, births were to be recorded in the family Bible, and that only deaths were made a matter of public record; and further,

8. That my parents were not aware that any certificate required by statute to be made by officers may, as a rule, be introduced into evidence (see Marlowe v. School District, 116 Pac 797) and, therefore, they were acquiescing to State requirements which violate my rights to privacy and the 4th Amendment protections under the Constitution for the United States of America, because the Birth Certificate is the record of the State of Massachusetts, not of the individual, and the State may be compelled to introduce said record without my permission; and further,

9. That such statutory practices by the State of Massachusetts are deceitful misrepresentations by the State and society, on the recording of births, and my parents were unaware that a Birth Certificate was not necessary, nor were they aware that they were possibly waiving some of my rights, which rights are unalienable rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution for the United States of America; and further,

10. That the doctor who delivered me acted as a licensed agent of the State of Massachusetts without the consent of either my own parents or myself, and offered me into a State trust to be regulated as other State and corporate interests and property as a result of that offer and acceptance, which comprises a fiction of law under statutory law (called contracts of adhesion, contracts implied by law, constructive contracts, quasi contracts, also referred to as implied consent legislation); and further,

11. That, from my own spiritual beliefs and training, I have come, and I have determined that the right to be born comes, from God Almighty (who knew me before I existed) -- not the State of Massachusetts and not the State of California -- and therefore original jurisdiction upon my behavior requiring any specific performance comes from my personal relationship with God Almighty, unless said performance causes demonstrable damage or injury to another natural human being; and further,

12. That, after studying the Birth Certificate, I have come to the conclusions that the Birth Certificate creates a legal estate in myself, and acts as the nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he were a corporate entity, that the State of Massachusetts, in cooperation with the federal government and its agents and assigns, is maintaining the Birth Certificate so as to assume jurisdiction over many aspects of my life in direct contravention of my unalienable rights and Constitutionally secured rights to be a "Freeman" and to operate at the Common Law; and further,

13. That such statutory provisions also cause a loss or diminution (depending upon other statutory provisions) of rights guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th amendments in the Constitution for the United States of America; and further,

14. That, as a result of my earnest and diligent studies, my prior ignorance has come to an end, and I have regained my capacity to be an American Freeman; therefore, it is now necessary that I declare any nexus assumed as a result of the Birth Certificate, by the State of Massachusetts or by any of its agents and assigns, including the federal government, and any jurisdictional or other rights that may be waived as a result of said trust/contract with all forms of government, to be null and void from its inception, due to the deceptive duress, fraud, injury, and incapacity perpetrated upon my parents and myself by the State of Massachusetts, the third party to the contract; and further,

15. That I was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States" as defined in Title 26, United States Codes and, therefore, I am not subject to its foreign jurisdiction. See 26 CFR 1.1-1(b)-(c); and further,

16. That, with this revocation of contract and the revocation of power, I do hereby claim all of my rights, all of my unalienable rights and all rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America, At Law, and do hereby declare, to one and all, that I am a free and independent Citizen now inhabiting the California Republic, who is not a creation of, nor subject to any State's civil law of admiralty, maritime, or equity jurisdictions and, as such, I am only attached to the judicial Power of California and/or the United States of America; and further,

17. That I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the "United States" (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution), that the Preamble and Sections 1 thru 16 of this Affidavit, are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of my knowledge; and further,

18. That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)" above my signature on this document indicates: that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements; and that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. And,


Further This Affiant Saith Not.


Subscribed and affirmed to, Nunc Pro Tunc, on the date of my majority, which date was ___ / ___ / ___.



Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this __________________ day of

__________________________, 199___ Anno Domini.


I now affix my signature to all of the affirmations herein WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207):



__________________________________________________________________________
John Q. Doe, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights.

John Q. Doe
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE


California All-Purpose Acknowledgement


CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
)
COUNTY OF MARIN )


On the ______ day of ____________, 199___ Anno Domini, before me personally appeared John Q. Doe, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument. Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.


WITNESS my hand and official seal.



_____________________________________
Notary Public


c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE

April 3, 1992
Registrar
Department of Public Health
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
c/o general delivery
Boston [ZIP code exempt]
MASSACHUSETTS STATE

RE: NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION

Dear Registrar:

Your letter to me dated March 23, 1992 acknowledges receipt of my signed and notarized revocation affidavit, referenced above. I am writing this letter in order to address the two statements contained in your letter, and to rebut any presumptions which could or might be conclusively established by allowing your two statements to remain unchallenged.


Statement #1: "This letter is to inform you that there is no provision under Massachusetts law to rescind a properly filed birth certificate."

Although this statement may, in fact, be technically and generally true, it is irrelevant to the specific issue at hand, for several reasons. First of all, it implies that my original birth certificate, on file in your office, was "properly filed". You have made this statement contrary to numerous facts which are contained in my revocation affidavit. You have now had ample opportunity to rebut any and all of those facts, and you have not done so. Accordingly, your failure to rebut any of those facts now renders them all conclusive, permanently for the record. You are now forever barred and estopped from challenging those facts as stated. Therefore, my original birth certificate was not "properly filed" as you incorrectly attempt to imply.

As a member of the Sovereignty by right of birth and hereditary succession, I belong to that group of people by whose authority the Massachusetts State Constitution was created. The Massachusetts State Legislature was created, in turn, by that Constitution. The "Massachusetts law" to which you refer is, in turn, a creation of that Legislature. Regardless of your status prior to becoming a State employee, your current status as a State employee necessarily subjects you to the letter of that "law". I am not subject either to the letter or to the spirit of that law, however.

Even though you are evidently restricted by law from unilaterally rescinding a birth certificate, I am not subject to any such a restriction. As someone who has explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, I specifically retain my right to unilaterally revoke and cancel my original birth certificate, for the several reasons stated in my affidavit, and to render it null and void from its inception. The affidavit which I have filed with your office is prima facie evidence that I have, in fact, exercised that right, the exercise of which is entirely within my Sovereign power and authority to do.

Moreover, you are evidently unaware of my prior written correspondence with Governor William F. Weld, in which I documented the fraud to which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an "accommodation party" as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. If you have any need to obtain copies of this correspondence between me and Governor Weld, I recommend that you first contact the Governor's staff for assistance. Alternatively, Governor Weld's office has personally informed me that my notice to him, with attachments, has now been forwarded to the offices of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senate, Washington, District of Columbia. Governor Weld's office did not challenge or rebut any statement of fact contained in my correspondence to him, except to suggest incorrectly that the issues which I raised were not within his jurisdiction. Senator Kennedy's office has not responded to me in any way concerning the materials which he received from Governor Weld.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is bound by the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (see MCLA c 106 Section 1-207). The conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit now constitute material proof that my original birth certificate was an unconscionable contract ab initio because, among other reasons, it was lacking in meaningful choice on my part. You have already been notified, and I hereby notify you again, that I have explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights, without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights. This means that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon all agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not.

Furthermore, my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of the "Remedy" which you must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

My explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all of its assignees, that they are all limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements (see UCC 3-305(2)(c)). You are under the obligation of good faith imposed at several places in the Uniform Commercial Code (see, e.g., 1-203). My valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.


Statement #2: "For this reason, your birth certificate on file in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts remains valid."

This statement is clearly incorrect because it is a non sequitor, in light of my responses in this letter to Statement #1, and particularly in light of the conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit. As an unconscionable contract the primary purpose of which was to offer me into a State trust, to be regulated as other State and corporate interests without my full consent of majority, this birth certificate is null and void from its inception, as are any rights of interest which may, now or in the future, be claimed as a result of any conveyance or reconveyance thereof to undisclosed third parties.

Your attempt to assert its validity in the face of contrary evidence is noted and can be used as prima facie evidence of your willingness to violate and otherwise contravene my unalienable rights and my Constitutionally secured rights as a Sovereign Freeman. These rights include, but are not limited to, those which are enumerated in my revocation affidavit.

You are hereby warned that you can and will be held personally liable for any further attempts to violate my fundamental, unalienable rights by acts on your part which attempt to compel my specific performance to any third-party debt or obligation created through the unlawful conveyance, conversion or other instrumentality of an invalid birth certificate. As an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are under a legal obligation to recognize that "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument," El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979). Your ignorance of the law is no excuse in this matter. If you are unsure about your own legal situation in this matter, may I recommend that you contact the State Attorney General's office for advice and assistance.

For your information, I am not subject to any foreign jurisdiction by reason of any contract or commercial agreement resulting in adhesion thereto across America, nor are millions of other Sovereign Citizens, unless they have provided waivers of rights guaranteed by the Constitution by means of knowingly intelligent acts, such as contracts or commercial agreements with such government(s) "with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences", as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). I have given no such waivers, nor is it possible that I could have given such waivers by reason of a birth certificate executed by other parties long before I was even able to speak or write, and long before my age of majority. Therefore, the birth certificate at issue is necessarily null and void, ab initio, notwithstanding any and all unsubstantiated statements by you to the contrary.


If I do not hear from you within ten (10) calendar days of the above date, I will be entitled to the conclusive presumption that this matter is settled. Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sincerely yours,

John Q. Doe, Sui Juris

with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights


copies: Senator Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate

Social Security Administration
Baltimore, Maryland


Reader's Notes:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-t.htm

*

[Sounder]

One thing about this freeman business that I like is that it encourages folk to think on their feet.

It's an energy generator that may well be adding positive coherency to the field of our collective unconsciousness.

[Cedars of Overburden]

I need to talk with my Dad about his grand jury experience several years ago. I do remember him telling me , very worried, that the prosecutor was almost threatening to them when some of the jurors expressed doubt about bringing an indictment.

Daddy is about to turn 82. I think this happened when he was 72 or so. It's one of the reasons he sometimes starts muttering about a police state, and so therefore, it's one of the reasons I love my Dad.

Vanlose, you rock.

[brainpanhandler]

What I cannot escape is the Gnosis that all this rules-based skullduggery is doomed, a dead end. If we manage to find smoking guns and loopholes, those glitches will be fixed by people who don't play by their own rules, never have, never will. You know?

Well, except why do those loopholes even exist at all, if they do at all? I mean it seems to me, and we seem to agree on this, that the judicial system is a corrupt, rigged game. We all know that with enough money you can buy whatever remedy or justice or lackthereof you want. It seems to me the loopholes are left there for the class of citizens wealthy enough to hire go betweens knowledgeable enough to take advantage of them. In which case, in light of some of the material in this thread, I am wondering if a sufficiently resourceful and determined citizen could not also take advantage of those same loopholes/glitches.

The power balance will not be shifted by a lineage of legalese from the Middle Ages, you know? That material is interesting but there's no utility.

Of course, the same could be said for anything we discuss here.

I don't think you really meant to make a statement that broad. The beginning of all utility is knowledge.

why go through the trouble of trying to solve e.g. 9/11 at all, when you can just run the entire apparatus out of town?

Because the next apparatus will be built and controlled by the same power blocs who controlled the last one.

That's probably true, but what remedy do you suggest then? I mean it's not as if ordinary human beings have never had an effect on tyrannical power structures.

I hate to be such a relentless cynic about this, but how would it play out any other way?

Money, resources, guns. Intelligence networks and family ties. Technology, infrastructure, land. These mundane, unofficial, real world factors shape our system more than laws ever did.

More? Yes. Entirely? No.

It's not like the bad guys just go away.

Sometimes they have.

I agree that our legal system is a lie, but I think the belief we can build a just one is an even bigger lie.

What does it mean to say our legal system is a lie? That it can't work to create justice? At all? Do you mean that you think the belief we can build a just one is a MORE DANGEROUS lie?

I mean frankly, as stacked as the deck is against us and against justice, I've always thought the judicial system, flawed as it is, was the last vestige of any real power an average citizen could leverage against the corporations/governments.

[brainpanhandler]

I pm'd Exojuridik, the only avowed lawyer I've ever run into at RI, in order to invite them to weigh in on this thread. I think I'll also email a couple of lawyer friends and get their thoughts.

[Wombaticus Rex]

The French Revolution is actually one of the first examples I'd bring up of how "revolution" so often just goes horribly wrong. Aside from that catharsis of chopping off a few royal heads -- and hot damn if that's not a dubious form of justice -- the results were far removed from the ad slogan of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Aside from that, excellent points here, really appreciate the feedback from Joe and BPH.

[JackRiddler]

The French Revolution is actually one of the first examples I'd bring up of how "revolution" so often just goes horribly wrong. Aside from that catharsis of chopping off a few royal heads -- and hot damn if that's not a dubious form of justice -- the results were far removed from the ad slogan of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

From the long-term perspective, I must respectfully but completely disagree. Those of us today who enjoy our partial liberation from feudal caste systems owe a great deal to those who took the first bloody steps.

The French Revolution was not chosen by anyone; the ancien regime rendered its own violent overthrow inevitable by its refusal and inability to provide justice or to reform, and by bankrupting itself through war and leaving most of the people in poverty and vulnerable to the famine of 1789. Incredibly, the royal family was not immediately wiped out but given the opportunity of presiding over a constitutional monarchy. They decided to undermine the new regime, and to collaborate with the foreign armies who attacked France. The latter purposed not only to reverse the revolution but to wage their own reign of terror that would have killed at least as many people, and likely many more. Only after the royals were caught committing this deadly treason did their heads roll, and it was no mere catharsis. From the perspective of the revolutionaries it was justice and, just as importantly, self-defense. The royals would always pose the same danger as long as they were alive.

As for the Strawman stuff, what I find most problematic in the theory is that its execution requires a highly implausible multi-generational conspiracy, or else a quasi-magical act of mass hypnosis that's lasted for centuries.

Do they teach this stuff in law school? If not, how and when do the judges and other perpetrators of this massive and universal fraud pick up on its existence? Where do they learn that Your Name is not YOUR NAME? When do they join in the fun of fooling everyone else? If there's no institution performing this function, then I must argue as you do, wombaticus, that the theory whatever its basis amounts to useless bullshit. Whatever's being interpreted into the history of Admiralty and Crown law, it doesn't matter without a history, a body of enforcement, court rulings and institutions that actually back any of it. Without those it would be little more than a curiousity of forgotten and therefore powerless language. (On the other hand, if there is an institution carrying this conspiracy, then here's a big WOW for them, because whoever and whatever they are, they make the visions heretofore of the Zion Elders and the Illuminati and the Lizard-Overlords look like pikers.)

The same is true for the myths around the origins of the income tax and Federal Reserve, i.e., that these laws never really passed properly, and therefore do not count. Even if it could be proven today that the passages were invalid -- which would be extremely interesting and educational -- it cannot and will not overturn 100 years of follow-up laws (which were passed validly), enforcement, court rulings, and institutional implementation. Only a movement for change and a long fight could possibly effect such a goal. There are no magic words that a lawyer could speak in one courtroom that would cause the existing edifice to crumble.

Sadly the same is true of the fact, infinitely better documented and well-recalled as recent history, that the 2000 US presidential election was decided by a fraudulent vote count and ended with a coup d'etat by an unconstitutional judicial fiat. No wand can be waved that would therefore end the wars the unelected regime started, or overturn the laws passed under it or the policies implemented by it (although many of the laws and policies might still be overturned individually on the sound basis of being unconstitutional). Clearly, that too would require a committed movement for change and a long fight. There's no getting around it.

I disagree with Sounder08 that the Strawman idea does much in awakening people to the their own creativity or power to resist. It's a shortcut that may make a few people feel empowered, but is highly limited. It can't substitute for a social movement based in common interests and/or universal rationality. It won't appeal to people who lack the strong individualist streak, who want to issue a personal declaration of independence or invoke a set of magic words that they hope will guide them and answer all questions forevermore. In the latter, it's very much like religion. Also, it's hilarious to think it will work in court on a wide scale. And most fatally, it is almost certainly a historical fiction. But I await for the lawyer who can make a case that there's a real basis to it.

.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Jack, I'd appreciate any pointers you could offer towards re-reading post-Revolutionary French history, thank you for challenging me on that.

Personally, while I want to see Obama and Bush both taken to account for their actions, if we came down to public executions I would feel that I had only participated in further crimes against humanity.

The justification that we had to do this is exactly what our Enemies invoke, and it is precisely this that makes them Enemies of the common people. I strongly subscribe to the philosophy that this is fundamentally a rescue mission, not a war, and there are no Enemies worth killing.

[vanlose kid]

I need to talk with my Dad about his grand jury experience several years ago. I do remember him telling me , very worried, that the prosecutor was almost threatening to them when some of the jurors expressed doubt about bringing an indictment.

Daddy is about to turn 82. I think this happened when he was 72 or so. It's one of the reasons he sometimes starts muttering about a police state, and so therefore, it's one of the reasons I love my Dad.

...

there's a story i'd like to hear once you've spoken to him.

thanks.

*