Hello and Question

[Flatulating Bovine]

Hello all Quatloosians -

I have read and enjoyed this forum, especially the sov cit subforum, for many years. I find this stuff particularly funny and fascinating.

I have a question for anyone who might know. The whole "all capitals straw man" thing. What is it that makes sovereign citizens believe in that? I mean, what is the logic. I know they are (mostly) nuts, but what is the train of thought they follow? Like if they were convinced the government wasn't spying on them through their cell phone and microwave oven, how would they answer this question?

I have asked a couple of "believers" about this and never got a single factual response, even an inaccurate or absurd one. One guy actually told me it would be absurd of him to explain it to me because I am a lawyer and should already know about it. LOL

[notorial dissent]

Hello and welcome.

• Point the first, logic and reason has nothing to do with it.
  
  Point the second, mostly???, come on now, you're being really generous here.
  
  Point the third, whatever train there might have been, derailed long ago in to the great dismal swamp of despair, or is that slew of Despond.
  
  Point the fourth, actually it is their toasters doing the spying, we've just kept that carefully hidden, and none of them have twigged to it yet, and besides we have their refrigerators as backup if they do.
  
  Point the fifth, actually, I could use a good fifth right about now, thinking about this stuff makes my brain ache.
  
  Point the sixth, the problem, the real problem, is that the "believers" got their fer sure and garunteed information off of the interwebs, or from some guru who either got it off the interwebs or from some other "expert" in the field of making thigns up out of whole cloth, and therefore it is gold plated garunteed fer sure absolute, in other words they don't know where it came from or how it works or is supposed to work, but they're convinced it works every time if only you say the magic words right and in the right order, which of course no one ever seems to manage to do. And no power on earth can make them listen to someone who might actually really know the answer, cause it didn't come off the interwebs or from their guru.
  
  Point the seventh, the tragic, or amusing, depending on your viewpoint, thing about this is that a lot of the nonsense they spout is actually based on real principals and ideas, just not the way they want them to work or be used. Strawman exists, but only as a concept to hide the identity of someone actually doing something, and beyond that has no real legal existence or purpose, except usually in fraud. The rest of it, if you can stand the loss of brain cells to wade through the sludge to get to the actual meat of the idea there is usually a kernal of reality, that has nothing to do with where they are trying to go with it.
  
  Point the eighth, a lot of imagination and energy, and let's not forget the money, goes in to attempting to avoid something that isn't going to ultimately be avoided. The only ones who ever come out something like ahead on this are the "experts" and gurus who are doing it for money, and most if not all of them don't end well. Like prison, broke, dead,
  
  Point the ninth, the old line about someone buying into something they really really want to believe in, even when down deep somewhere they know it is a crock applies.
  
  Point the tenth, I think you get the picture.

Again, hello and welcome.

[Flatulating Bovine]

Thank you ND. I agree with all of that, but I was really wanting to know what they're claimed, purported, reasoning is. Mind you, I am not being critical, as I realize there may indeed be no such reasoning, however faulty.

But if so, this just illustrates the depths of stupidity they can fall to. With most sovrun myths there is some convoluted, counterintuitive, and completeley nonsense train of thought that they all have unwittingly bought off on. With this particular subject, it is uniquely void of any way to justfiy it.

I would think there would have been by now some whackjob (that is a technical term) who claims to have worked in the "all capital letters corporate fiction department" of some illuminati bank/govt. agency or some such crap. Or some faked source document that could be misinterpreted according to one specific sentence out of a single excerpt of the federalist papers. But there appears to be really utterly nothing.

Others please feel free to add, I would really like to see what their logic is for this.

[Burnaby49]

You can get an explanation here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman_theory

And Wikipedia covers it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

In a nutshell, for what it's worth as an attempt at rational explanation Wikipedia says:

"The redemption movement consists of supporters of an American conspiracy theory.[1] Redemption theory involves claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so that it could borrow money. Other theories claim this happened in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. The movement also asserts that common citizens can gain access to funds in secret accounts using obscure procedures and regulations.

According to the theory, the government created a fictitious person (or "straw man") corresponding to each newborn citizen with bank accounts initially holding $630,000. The theory further holds that through obscure procedures under the Uniform Commercial Code, a citizen can "reclaim" the straw man and write checks against its accounts.[2]"

We have a variant here in Canada that has put a bunch of people in jail for tax evasion. They claim we are all "natural persons" and, for tax purposes, we are also "persons", a legal fiction. As a natural person you don't pay tax so none of us are taxable because only the fictitious person is taxable. Don't bother to ask the logic behind it, there is none to anyone not straining to find any way they can to avoid paying tax. As far as I understand it the Canadian Income Tax Act states that the meaning of "person" for tax purposes includes corporations so these legal geniuses take that as meaning "person", for tax purposes, includes only corporations.

[LPC]

I have a question for anyone who might know. The whole "all capitals straw man" thing. What is it that makes sovereign citizens believe in that?

I think that the "logic" goes something like this:

1. The lawsuit (or notice of deficiency, or child support order, or whatever) that I just got has my name all in capital letters.

2. I don't spell my name in capital letters.

3. I don't want to believe that the document refers to me.

4. Therefore....

I have asked a couple of "believers" about this and never got a single factual response,

Not even for very small values of "factual"?

But seriously, what did you expect?

Court opinions dealing with this nonsense can be found here.

[LPC]

I wanted to add that I hesitate to "welcome" you ("Flatulating Bovine") to Quatloos only because of your screen name, which suggested that if you linger you might "poison the atmosphere" (so to speak).

I also didn't want to urge you to leave, because then you might turn and direct towards us the present active participle part of your name (further poisoning the discussions).

Is there a polite way to suggest that your "contributions" to the discussions should be as unrelated to your name as possible?

[notorial dissent]

When all is said and done, "whackjob" pretty well defines the entire movement, most of the followers of the various theories truly are sincere in their belief in whatever piece of nonsense they have latched on to at the moment, and they really really believe it, but when pressed, most of them won't have clue one about what it is based on other than that they "know" it is true. The information always comes from their brothers best friend's third cousin who is in the "know", and that is as close to a real rationale or explanation as you will ever get. This stuff more closely comes under the heading of urban myth, they all swear it is so, but can't prove a thing.

[Flatulating Bovine]

You can get an explanation here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman_theory

And Wikipedia covers it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

In a nutshell, for what it's worth as an attempt at rational explanation Wikipedia says:

"The redemption movement consists of supporters of an American conspiracy theory.[1] Redemption theory involves claims that when the U.S. government abandoned the gold standard in 1933, it pledged its citizens as collateral so that it could borrow money. Other theories claim this happened in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. The movement also asserts that common citizens can gain access to funds in secret accounts using obscure procedures and regulations.

According to the theory, the government created a fictitious person (or "straw man") corresponding to each newborn citizen with bank accounts initially holding $630,000. The theory further holds that through obscure procedures under the Uniform Commercial Code, a citizen can "reclaim" the straw man and write checks against its accounts.[2]"

We have a variant here in Canada that has put a bunch of people in jail for tax evasion. They claim we are all "natural persons" and, for tax purposes, we are also "persons", a legal fiction. As a natural person you don't pay tax so none of us are taxable because only the fictitious person is taxable. Don't bother to ask the logic behind it, there is none to anyone not straining to find any way they can to avoid paying tax. As far as I understand it the Canadian Income Tax Act states that the meaning of "person" for tax purposes includes corporations so these legal geniuses take that as meaning "person", for tax purposes, includes only corporations.

I appreciate the response. What I was going after was some flimsy fact that they were latching onto. As I suspect that with this particular frivolous argument, there is none.

[Flatulating Bovine]

I wanted to add that I hesitate to "welcome" you ("Flatulating Bovine") to Quatloos only because of your screen name, which suggested that if you linger you might "poison the atmosphere" (so to speak).

I also didn't want to urge you to leave, because then you might turn and direct towards us the present active participle part of your name (further poisoning the discussions).

Is there a polite way to suggest that your "contributions" to the discussions should be as unrelated to your name as possible?

Dear LPC:

I fart in your general direction.

Respectfully,

Flatulating Bovine

[wserra]

Fetchez la vache!

[Cathulhu]

His father smelled of elderberries.

[AndyK]

Dear LPC:

I fart in your general direction.

Respectfully,

Flatulating Bovine

House rules: Directed -- either generally or specifically -- farts must be delivered with a bad French accent.

[Flatulating Bovine]

Err, but that was my straw man, uh I mean "Straw cow", doing said farting. Moo! pfft.

[Gregg]

Just remember that if you live to get a few hundred posts, we get to choose your style and title.

[grixit]

Sultan of Sulfides

[Flatulating Bovine]

Just remember that if you live to get a few hundred posts, we get to choose your style and title.

Not the first semi-unwelcoming post here. What's with this place? Are you afraid of something I might say? Got something to hide? Why the taking things so seriously? Very odd if I say.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Just remember that if you live to get a few hundred posts, we get to choose your style and title.

Not the first semi-unwelcoming post here. What's with this place? Are you afraid of something I might say? Got something to hide? Why the taking things so seriously? Very odd if I say.

Odd aint even the half of it.

There are traditions.

[The Observer]

Not the first semi-unwelcoming post here. What's with this place? Are you afraid of something I might say? Got something to hide? Why the taking things so seriously? Very odd if I say.

Apologies if the posts to you have come across as unwelcoming. I think I can say with 99.9% surety that was not the intent.

I think LPC's post was simply bantering at the expense of your unusual handle.

And Greg's (as well as JRB's) post was alluding to the time-honored tradition of handing out special titles to those posters who stick around and contribute to the site here. As an example, your current title is the default "stowaway" that is handed out to to all who join. Once you pass 100 posts (my memory is hazy on this point, maybe its 500) you will be awarded the "admiral" title. There are similar nautical-themed titles handed out in the interim on your way to the top.

However, if you look at the regular posters, you will see some very strange and esoteric titles. For instance, my title is "Coordinator of the Grand Conspiracies." Most of the titles are making light of, poking fun at, or just outright mocking the various myths of the Illuminati, admiralty law, tax protestors/defiers, sovruns and the like. Other titles may be based on the poster's handle or their style of posting. None of this is done to "unwelcome" the regular contributor but to reward them and to let them know that we consider them one of the Quatloosian population. I would offer that Greg's and JRB's posts are anticipating that you will be a regular contributor and that a title may be heading your way in the future.

[wserra]

But then again, there is the matter of your contribution to global warming . . .

[Flatulating Bovine]

Thank you for the insight...hey a little methane never hurt anyone