"Strawman theory traces its roots to the old Roman legal practice of capitis deminutio ("loss of head"), a term found in Roman trials for the extinguishment of someone's past legal capacity. Capitis deminutio minima designed a person ceased to belong to a particular family, without lack of liberty or citizenship. Capitis deminutio media involved lack of citizenship and family, however, not liberty. Capitis deminutio maxima engaged loss of family, citizenship and liberty (e. g. being made a slave or a prisoner of conflict). [4]
The term was later revived in the US by the tax protestor and sovereign citizen movements and coupled with a misreading of the definition of person from Black's regulation dictionary (an American legislations dictionary). Strawman theory will take the term capitis deminutio, misspells it (commonly as "Capitis Diminutio") and boasts that capitis diminutio maxima was represented by an individual's name being written completely in capital words (even though Latin only got capitals in the past). This resulted in the idea that folks had a separate legal personality now called a "strawman", represented in capitals. (rationalwiki, 2015)
Strawman theory holds that an person has two personas. One of these is a physical, tangible individual, and the other as their legal person, personality or strawman, often referred to as a legal fiction. (The word "legal fiction" is utilized by woos as if it were synonymous with intangible, rather than using its correct interpretation. )
The main use of strawman theory is escaping and denying money, liabilities and legal responsibility. Tax protestors, "commercial redemption" and "get out of debt free" scams declare that one's bad debts and taxes will be the responsibility of the strawman and not of the real person, freeing the true person from the necessity to pay them.
Sovereign citizen's movements and freemen on the land also extend this idea to legislation and legal responsibilities by claiming that this is only their strawman that is required to adhere to statutory regulations such as paying taxes, having licences and obeying traffic regulations. They also declare that all legal proceedings in courts are used against your strawman somewhat than you as a person and that whenever one shows up in court docket they appear not as themselves but as representing their strawman. The justification because of this is their bogus notion that governments cannot push anybody to do anything against their will. They therefore generate a strawman which being their own creation they are free to employer about at will.
Woos believe that by separating oneself from their strawman or refusing to be discovered as their strawman they can get away from their various liabilities and responsibilities such as paying their bad debts or obeying laws they don't like. That is typically done by denying they can be a person and the same thing as their strawman or by writing their name in various bizarre ways including the following:
- John of the family Smith
- John of Smith
- John:Smith
- John (commonly known as)
By carrying out this they may be refusing to stand for the strawman. In addition to capitals, the utilization of titles such as Mr and Mrs are stated to point a reference to someone's strawman. Surnames are also typically referred to as area of the legal fiction and advocates will often insist that they don't have a surname but rather a family name.
Some woos assume that the strawman is created by the federal government when a labor and birth certificate is submitted. Woos sometimes then try to present their delivery qualification when their strawman's name is necesary, such just as court.
[edit] Debunking
It should be noted that there is a legal principle known as Idem sonans (Latin for "sounding the same") which expresses that similar sounding names are just as valid in referring to a person. The relevant UK precedent is R v Davis 1851.
|
""If two titles spelt differently always sound similarly, the court docket may, as subject of regulation, pronounce them to be idem sonantia; but if indeed they do not necessarily sound alike, the question whether they are idem sonantia is a question of truth for the jury. |
The strawman idea appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the idea of legal person-hood. In real legal theory there's a difference between what is known as a 'natural person' (which really is a individual, i. e. , not really a legal fiction) and this of a corporate person (a legal fiction known as corporate personhood, which pertains to business, charities, governments and any recognized organisation). Courts recognise humans as 'people', not as a legal fiction joined to a flesh and blood individual but as one and the same (though before not everyone was recognized as a person prior to the legislations). They haven't recognised a right to distance oneself from one's person, or the capability to select out of personhood. Where this defence has been tried out in courtroom, judges have rejected it. It really is impossible to dodge regulations by insisting that you will be not the same as your person. If a court can set up your identity, no matter your consent or co-operation, then it is absolve to take part in proceedings and sanctions against you.
The use of block capitals to complete varieties is often used as evidence for the existence of strawmen. The idea is that the form is requesting your strawman's identity. The truth is this is performed for ease of reading by humans and personal computers alike; it is not proof some legal conspiracy. " (rationalwiki, 2015)
rationalwiki. (2015). Retrieved from rationalwiki. org: http://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Strawman_theory
