Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I've had fun reading and watching Rob Menard fail, I think we should open up the discussion because this woo is growing and has been ever since 2009. Of course we know soverign legal woo has been around for decades, but I first noticed it being peddled on sites like Above Top Secret in the late 2000s where it, of course, got rave reviews as a way to FIGHT THE MAN. That was my first encounter with self-proclaimed sovereigns, and what amazed me about the woo is simply how insane it was and how little evidence mattered to those who believed. I know this is a characteristic of all woo, but there is just something about legal woo which really hits me as among the most bizarre/stupid (and its hard to compete for most stupid when looking through the flavors of woo!).

I'm sure I wasn't the first person to ever post about "soverign citizen" (using quotes to encompass all flavors of legal woo: freeman on the land, soverign citizens, etc.) on JREF but I think one of my threads was the first to get traction...which then quickly escalated and got buried under new threads. We quickly focused on Rob Menard who obviously is an easy target and was nice enough to keep slapping himself by posting here and being debunked routinely.

But I'd like to see the discussion grow now. One of the legal woos that I think is just as stupid (if not more so) than Menard's doctrine is this group:
http://splcenter.org/get-informed/i...all-issues/2012/summer/sins-of-the-sovereigns

I've posted about them before, but no one seemed interested - which surprises me. Here is a group that not only pushes all the cornerstones of soverign mythology (signing in blood, statements of intent, paper terrorism in courts, etc.) but believe that they are setting up the "real" government of the united States (small u - even capitalization woo!). Its got hundreds of people nation wide who have bought this whole sale and have elected themselves "congressmen" and "senators". Their leader (elected "President"!), Tim Turner, is a soverign mythology peddler who got his start in woo by selling get out of your mortgage via paper terrorism seminars.

I mean...how insane can you be? These people go around acting like they are the "real" government and the actual real government is just a big conspiracy which will one day fall and they will take over. The level of total disconnection from reality is among the worst I've ever seen.
 
Just a note but the 'woo' that Menard was into can be traced back to similar stuff put out by Mikhail Bakunin in the mid 19th century. But it doesn't stop there parts of that 'woo' can also be traced back even further......
 
Hans said:
Just a note but the 'woo' that Menard was into can be traced back to similar stuff put out by Mikhail Bakunin in the mid 19th century. But it doesn't stop there parts of that 'woo' can also be traced back even further......
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting. Didn't know it goes that far back, but it ALWAYS seems to gain prominence during economic recessions...something about the allure of getting out of ones debts without penalty (which is IMO the root of soverign ideology).
 
Yes and during good times it just 'simmers'.

Some quotes from MK

If there is a State, then there is domination, and in turn, there is slavery.
Click to expand...

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.
Click to expand...

From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots
Click to expand...
 
LightinDarkness said:
While I've had fun reading and watching Rob Menard fail, I think we should open up the discussion because this woo is growing and has been ever since 2009. Of course we know soverign legal woo has been around for decades, but I first noticed it being peddled on sites like Above Top Secret in the late 2000s where it, of course, got rave reviews as a way to FIGHT THE MAN. That was my first encounter with self-proclaimed sovereigns, and what amazed me about the woo is simply how insane it was and how little evidence mattered to those who believed. I know this is a characteristic of all woo, but there is just something about legal woo which really hits me as among the most bizarre/stupid (and its hard to compete for most stupid when looking through the flavors of woo!).

I'm sure I wasn't the first person to ever post about "soverign citizen" (using quotes to encompass all flavors of legal woo: freeman on the land, soverign citizens, etc.) on JREF but I think one of my threads was the first to get traction...which then quickly escalated and got buried under new threads. We quickly focused on Rob Menard who obviously is an easy target and was nice enough to keep slapping himself by posting here and being debunked routinely.

But I'd like to see the discussion grow now. One of the legal woos that I think is just as stupid (if not more so) than Menard's doctrine is this group:
http://splcenter.org/get-informed/i...all-issues/2012/summer/sins-of-the-sovereigns

I've posted about them before, but no one seemed interested - which surprises me. Here is a group that not only pushes all the cornerstones of soverign mythology (signing in blood, statements of intent, paper terrorism in courts, etc.) but believe that they are setting up the "real" government of the united States (small u - even capitalization woo!). Its got hundreds of people nation wide who have bought this whole sale and have elected themselves "congressmen" and "senators". Their leader (elected "President"!), Tim Turner, is a soverign mythology peddler who got his start in woo by selling get out of your mortgage via paper terrorism seminars.

I mean...how insane can you be? These people go around acting like they are the "real" government and the actual real government is just a big conspiracy which will one day fall and they will take over. The level of total disconnection from reality is among the worst I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't have enough first hand knowledge of American law to really do much with jokers like Turner other than to point out the obvious stuff.

Also, it can get kind of circle-jerky in here without a sovereign type around. We've had a few good ones like Menard, Warman and a cast of secondary characters, but they've all gone now.

No fun without 'em.
 
LightinDarkness said:
I mean...how insane can you be? These people go around acting like they are the "real" government and the actual real government is just a big conspiracy which will one day fall and they will take over. The level of total disconnection from reality is among the worst I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

For many freemen this illusory greatness is a balm soothing the reality that the van they are living in is getting cold at night, that their last courtroom experience wasn’t exactly the resounding success portrayed on that freeman internet forum and the ex doesn't want him around the kids too much anymore.

To keep up the illusion freemen are forced to associate with other freemen who, as part of a sort of symbiotic cult like relationship, wouldn’t dare point out reality.

And then there is the self medication of drugs and alcohol.
 
Hans said:
A summary of sovereign citizen thought

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-tax-bill-by-writing-accepted-for-value-on-it
Click to expand...


It wasn’t sovereign citizens who dreamed up the idea that the 14th Amendment created fictional persons. It was that hotbed of extremism, the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Does anyone know exactly what case or cases this refers to? I can find cases such as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888) in which the court says that protection under the 14th Amendment can apply to corporations as well as natural persons, but I can't find any decision that says that the 14th Amendment actually created "fictional persons". The concept of corporate persons appears to have already existed before the 14th Amendment.
 
Mojo said:
Does anyone know exactly what case or cases this refers to? I can find cases such as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888) in which the court says that protection under the 14th Amendment can apply to corporations as well as natural persons, but I can't find any decision that says that the 14th Amendment actually created "fictional persons". The concept of corporate persons appears to have already existed before the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes corporations existed long before the 14th

I'll speculate that they this deals with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
 
Hello, all. I am another long time lurker (and Icke forum freeman detractor). I just popped in to expand a little on the whole corporate personhood issue.

First, while legal historians sometimes point to obscure origins in Roman law, the Romans didn't have corporations in our sense - they don't seem to have had a concept of artificial legal personality. They simply distinguished between people of different legal status, only some of whom had what we would call legal personality. They had partnerships and occassionally dealt with groups of people as a single unit, for example inhabitants of a conquered town.

Second, the medieval examples of corporate personality aren't exactly corporations in the modern sense, but groups of real people treated as one for certain purposes (for example, municipalities, guilds, churches, sometimes even villages). Even in those cases the personality of the group often seems to be closely associated with the personality of its leaders. For example, if someone has a land dispute with a church, their suit isn't against "the church" but against the relevant church official.

Third, the most widely accepted view of corporate personhood seems to be that it was a late 16th or early 17th century invention and specifically that certain businesses received Royal Charters which in effect said "this business is a person." For a long time companies could only be created by what amounted to special legislation like this. The US inherited this tradition of charter corporations along with much of the rest of English law and eventually, as in England, the states created a formal legal process through which new companies could be created without special legislation.

The writer on straight dope while correctly condemning the A4V seems to be one of many who, critical of Citizens United, has come to criticize corporate legal personality or the extension of constitutional rights to corporations. I think that the comment is meant to be a dig at Citizens United and its ilk.
 
Aulus Agerius said:
Hello, all. I am another long time lurker (and Icke forum freeman detractor). I just popped in to expand a little on the whole corporate personhood issue.

First, while legal historians sometimes point to obscure origins in Roman law, the Romans didn't have corporations in our sense - they don't seem to have had a concept of artificial legal personality. They simply distinguished between people of different legal status, only some of whom had what we would call legal personality. They had partnerships and occassionally dealt with groups of people as a single unit, for example inhabitants of a conquered town.

Second, the medieval examples of corporate personality aren't exactly corporations in the modern sense, but groups of real people treated as one for certain purposes (for example, municipalities, guilds, churches, sometimes even villages). Even in those cases the personality of the group often seems to be closely associated with the personality of its leaders. For example, if someone has a land dispute with a church, their suit isn't against "the church" but against the relevant church official.

Third, the most widely accepted view of corporate personhood seems to be that it was a late 16th or early 17th century invention and specifically that certain businesses received Royal Charters which in effect said "this business is a person." For a long time companies could only be created by what amounted to special legislation like this. The US inherited this tradition of charter corporations along with much of the rest of English law and eventually, as in England, the states created a formal legal process through which new companies could be created without special legislation.

The writer on straight dope while correctly condemning the A4V seems to be one of many who, critical of Citizens United, has come to criticize corporate legal personality or the extension of constitutional rights to corporations. I think that the comment is meant to be a dig at Citizens United and its ilk.
Click to expand...
Welcome!

Citizens United is an appalling decision. Of course, it's the decision that is appalling, not necessarily the entire concept of corporate personhood - a point that sails far, far over the head of most FOTLers.

For example, here in Canada, corporations are entirely forbidden from making campaign contributions, and third party advertising is highly regulated. A very sensible and appropriate restriction on the "rights" of corporate persons IMO.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Welcome!

Citizens United is an appalling decision. Of course, it's the decision that is appalling, not necessarily the entire concept of corporate personhood - a point that sails far, far over the head of most FOTLers.
Click to expand...

Quite. A delegate at a recent conference put it that, once you escape conventional corruption - bribes for contracts etc, you simply get alternative corruption - campaign contributions & advertising in exchange for policies favourable to personal or business interests. Unfortunately he didn't have any ideas about how you could efficiently prohibit that sort of contribution.
The thing I've always wondered is how political contributions by private corporations aren't a breach of the directors' duties to shareholders.
For example, here in Canada, corporations are entirely forbidden from making campaign contributions, and third party advertising is highly regulated. A very sensible and appropriate restriction on the "rights" of corporate persons IMO.
Click to expand...
That sounds a good set of limitations. I've heard that there's a redux of Citizens United on its way to the Supreme Court so here's hoping for something more sensible on the second go round...
 
Aulus Agerius said:
That sounds a good set of limitations. I've heard that there's a redux of Citizens United on its way to the Supreme Court so here's hoping for something more sensible on the second go round...
Click to expand...

It's a good set of limitations if the goal is to restrict political speech. If the goal is to prohibit the government from restricting speech, then maybe not so much...

In any event, since the US Constitution has an article with the explicit goal of prohibiting the government from restricting speech, it's hard to imagine a worse set of limitations (from the Constitutional point of view), than that which consists of the government prohibiting speech.

I dunno, maybe Canada has enshrined different core values about free speech, among whatever fundamental principles guide its governance?
 
jargon buster said:
Seriously though guys, the whole internet is now pretty much free of the loons, OK WFS still has around 4 of them but thats pretty much it, ...
Click to expand...

Don't forget over at DIF.
I found tampinu quite amusing with his silly definitions of words.

Why make an "Appearance" like a ghost???
I have never seen any legal document that invites a PERSON to attend court. All I ever see is a summon that asks the PERSON to "make an appearance" in court
As far as I know, men and women attend places, they don't appear at places, appearance is what the ghosts, zombies and strawmen do
Click to expand...
 
Aulus Agerius said:
...
The thing I've always wondered is how political contributions by private corporations aren't a breach of the directors' duties to shareholders.....
Click to expand...
It would be an interesting lawsuit, the directors having to specify what services/favors they got in return for the money. :)

theprestige,
I think you missed the point, have you ever heard of bought politicians and corruption?

Do you see how it could be a problem when trying to get democracy to work?
 
ComfySlippers said:
Don't forget over at DIF.
I found tampinu quite amusing with his silly definitions of words.

Why make an "Appearance" like a ghost???
Click to expand...

Word games are exactly how the freemen and their southern brethren, the sovereign citizens, make their woo sound plausible. By pretending to stick to "strict" definitions of words, they make it sound all legal and official. Part of it is that legalese is a completely different language from common American or British English, and that leaves a loophole for freemen to insert their completely off-the-wall "legal definitions".
 
theprestige said:
I dunno, maybe Canada has enshrined different core values about free speech, among whatever fundamental principles guide its governance?
Click to expand...
It's all thought police and gulags up here. You should probably invade and liberate the **** right out of us, considering America always knows best.
 
I think the Supreme Court is getting a lot of criticism it doesn't deserve for its decision. It's not the job of the court to base its rulings on utilitarian calculations or on anyone's personal feelings, but on the Constitution. And as much as we might not like it, the Constitution (particularly the First Amendment) makes no exceptions for corporations when talking about freedom of speech. If we want to fix that, which I certainly do, then the correct step is to amend the Constitution, not blame the justices for doing their job correctly.
 
Bishop said:
I think the Supreme Court is getting a lot of criticism it doesn't deserve for its decision. It's not the job of the court to base its rulings on utilitarian calculations or on anyone's personal feelings, but on the Constitution. And as much as we might not like it, the Constitution (particularly the First Amendment) makes no exceptions for corporations when talking about freedom of speech. If we want to fix that, which I certainly do, then the correct step is to amend the Constitution, not blame the justices for doing their job correctly.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A constitution is a living document. It comprises text plus jurisprudence. Plenty of first amendment exceptions have already been read in, including restrictions on commercial speech. It is arguably more of a departure from American constitutionalism to grant first amendment protection to corporate political spending than it is to deny it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom