More on Murphy

[Dr. Caligari]

From the Tax Prof Blog, a link to a law-review note which (a) argues that the original Murphy panel decision was correct, and (b) explains why that decision doesn't really help the TPs (even though they thought it did):

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... te-dc.html

[Wake Up! Productions]

Post Deleted By Author.

[Hanslune]

Okay I'll ask the obvious question what is/are this/the 5% that you believe is valid?

[NYGman]

Okay I'll ask the obvious question what is/are this/the 5% that you believe is valid?

Even a broken watch is right twice a day

[Philistine]

Okay I'll ask the obvious question what is/are this/the 5% that you believe is valid?

Yes, a testable claim. Please give us at least 1 or 2 examples of valid freemanary.

[NYGman]

Okay I'll ask the obvious question what is/are this/the 5% that you believe is valid?

Yes, a testable claim. Please give us at least 1 or 2 examples of valid freemanary.

While not related to Dean specifically and are all UK examples, there are confirmed reports, and I have no reason to doubt, that there is one collection agency that gives up on the debt after getting the first of the three/five letters. While the reason is probably not related to the text of the letter, it is more likely due to the low amounts they deal with, and that the letter shows they are dealing with a FMOTL, and that it will drag on for ages and wont end well, so I think they make a cost/benefit decision not to peruse these claims after the first letter. However, even if this results in the write-off of debt, it will still impact credit (or should, some report it doesn't) and technically they didn't win because of the legal argument.

Another one I have seen in the UK that seems to work has to do with old unsecured debts (I think some credit cards) based on contracts in place before some act, although I don't recall the name of the act or year this impacts. I think the gist of this one is that there is no right to collect, but I really didn't look at it that closely. Companies usually respond to the letter saying while they can't collect the debt, it will be reported to the credit agents if not paid. Again, some say no credit impact.

One final UK item I have seen dealt with the enforcement of fines for parking on private property, when serviced by a third party, although I believe this loophole may have been closed.

So at least in the UK, there are some examples where Freeman woo may get results, but again, I think this is more dumb luck, than anything else.

[Jeffrey]

There is a level of it working by accident. I got to finish the Mark Ceylon interview last night and he mentions a "success" of getting a credit card company to stop pursuing some $5,000 debt or around that figure.

In real world terms, he defaulted on the debt and now his credit rating must be absolutely terrible. Arguably not a loss for a 51 year old man who lives off benefits and scamming people with magic machines that cure HIV. But this would not be a practical benefit to a large chunk of the population, someone young with plans of someday getting a car or house could absolutely not afford to wreck his credit in such a manner.

Or say the Crawford's remaining in a house they haven't made a payment for in two years, or Ron Van Dyke, close to a decade in a house without paying for it or taxes. The alternative being homelessness or public housing.

There definitely seems to be a hypothetical niche market where this strategy works temporarily, but you pretty much have to be dead broke and near to the end of your lifespan.

[ArthurWankspittle]

One final UK item I have seen dealt with the enforcement of fines for parking on private property, when serviced by a third party, although I believe this loophole may have been closed.

Nothing to do with Freeman-ism. The system had three legal flaws. The company enforcing the parking ticket was not the agent of the landowner in the necessary legal sense, the ticket was not a fine (private companies can't issue fines) it was effectively an invoice and the was an argument that the loss incurred was not the amount on the invoice, and, finally, the parking company would have to go to great lengths to actually prove who was driving the car. All that changed was most of the above was acknowledged and the parking companies got the right to request the car owner's information from the DVLA (gov body that deals with cars and driving licenses).

[NYGman]

One final UK item I have seen dealt with the enforcement of fines for parking on private property, when serviced by a third party, although I believe this loophole may have been closed.

Nothing to do with Freeman-ism. The system had three legal flaws. The company enforcing the parking ticket was not the agent of the landowner in the necessary legal sense, the ticket was not a fine (private companies can't issue fines) it was effectively an invoice and the was an argument that the loss incurred was not the amount on the invoice, and, finally, the parking company would have to go to great lengths to actually prove who was driving the car. All that changed was most of the above was acknowledged and the parking companies got the right to request the car owner's information from the DVLA (gov body that deals with cars and driving licenses).

Fair enough, but it was something picked up on by the FMOTL movement,. I Know DerbJD (John Dow) has several videos on his YouTube Channel with recordings to these companies.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Post Deleted By Author.

[Burnaby49]

Let me preface this by stating that this is not a “Poriskyite” style rant. In fact, I whole-heartedly disagree with his “natural person theory” in its entirety, and he will be convicted (again) if he continues to use it. When you boil down all freeman/sovereign theories, they all fail the smell test, as they all come to the same faulty conclusion: that the all-caps legal name is a “corporation” or artificial person (strawman, legal fiction, ship, vessel, etc.).

If you are not aware I'm attending Porisky's trial hearings and writing them up;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485

I doubt he will be using the "natural person" argument for two reasons;

1 - He tried it at his original trial and got convicted of tax evasion. Every one of his followers who has used it has been convicted of tax evasion.

2 - He has a lawyer this time. No competent lawyer would allow him to use the natural person defense.

It doesn't matter. He was convicted in a judge-only trial and he will also be convicted in his upcoming jury trial regardless of whatever defense he tries.

[arayder]

A natural person is subject to the rule of law.

You can dress the freeman stuff up anyway you want, or say that a tiny bit of it makes sense. But it doesn't change the fact that law, custom and history runs totally contradictorially to the essence of freeman theory.

Whether a natural person "volunteers" or not he or she is still subject to the rule of law.

That's why freemen and freemen-lites are always stumped by the a question asking how their theories can be reconciled with the reality that in the days before birth certificates, lottery tickets and income tax returns our ancestors, who had no "enjoinder" contact with federal, state/provincial or local government were still subject to the rule of law.

At the practical level this means a young man in 1800 rural U.S. or Canada with no registration of his birth other than that in the family bible, having never paid a tax or having encountered the government could ride the family mule into the newly grown town and get himself fined for public urination after he had the first two beers of his life.

Why?

Because he is a natural person subject to the rule of law.

[NYGman]

I see Person in the law all the time, and typically it refers to "Natural persons" and Unnatural persons (Entities).

There may be times when something applies to a natural person that may not apply to all persons under the law. This is the only time I believe "Natural person" has any relevance.