To think that 'Strawman' thing is a load of tosh? or is there some truth in it?

[AmberLeaf]

Have seen links and references to 'Strawman' posted on Facebook and other forums.

Meet your Strawman

So, is it nonsense or is there any truth in it?

[Tortington]

The registering of a baby's birth actually passes "ownership" of the baby to the Local Authority and that, and that alone, allows the Local Authority staff to take the child away from the parents if they ever want to do that. This applies until the child reaches the 'age of maturity' set by the current legal statutes. Doing that is not "lawful" but after the birth has been registered, it is "legal" and there is a world of difference between those two terms, a difference which it is very important that you come to understand clearly.

[Tortington]

that is bollocks surely

[rushofbloodtothefeet]

A ha ha ha ha ha



ha ha ha ha ha ha

[AmberLeaf]

Thanks, thats what Im wanting a better understanding of, the difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'

The mortgage part interests me, if that is true, why is anyone paying their mortgage?!

[AmberLeaf]

Aah, Custardo I thought you were agreeing with that part!

As I said, surely its a load of tosh?

[worraliberty]

I lost the will to live a few minutes into reading it.

[ecclesvet]

Is it that 'Freeman of the Land' bollocks?

Utter rubbish.

[BerryLellow]

:S

[AmberLeaf]

A few 'friends of friends' on facebook have posted that link and TBH the majority of them are old DJs who I think probably did a bit too much 'E' in the late 80s/90s.

Im hoping someone here will be able to disect their argument from a legal perspective 'cos I havent a clue!

[nocake]

Complete and utter nonsense. There are people who have tried to use it in court to avoid being tried and convicted. They've all discovered exactly how much bollocks it is.

[said]

Oh, god, it's unreadable (rogue apostrophes all over the place) but it's a Conspiracy Theorist's wet dream

[AmberLeaf]

Ok so its such utter tripe that it doesnt really even warrant a proper argument disputing it?

'Thats a load of shite' will suffice yes?

[toddlerama]

Yeah, it's rubbish. I think some people wish it to be true because they aren't functioning very successfully within the system, but it isn't.

[NotQuiteCockney]

The people who wrote it can't tell the difference between "its" and "it's". Therefore they are morons.

And the argument is a bizarro version of a (equally) bizarro American theory about birth certificates and states' rights, the upshot of which is, Americans apparently don't have to do anything they don't want to.

[Tortington]

surely all bollocks?

As mentioned before, if the police officer says "Do you understand?" then your response should be "No! I do NOT stand under you in this matter". As before, the question is a Legalese trap and has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding anything which has been said.

Under Common Law, an offence has only been committed if there is a victim (somebody who has been killed or injured, had possessions damaged or stolen or who has been defrauded). So, if the police officer keeps pushing you to agree to pay his company money when you don't need to, then a good question to ask might be "Who is the victim?". An alternative is to ask "What is the charge, or am I free to go?". If you stick to these things, then the police officer has nothing to work on as you have not agreed to be bound by statutes, you have not provided a name and address for him to write on an Invoice (or "Fixed Penalty Notice" as they like to call it) and you have not entered into a "controversy" by arguing with him or into "dishonour" by refusing him point blank.

There is one other thing, and that is, without being aggressive or offensive in any way, you must not do anything which he tells you to do because if you do, then those charming Legalese people can see that as you agreeing to "stand under" him and become subject to his "legal" (not "lawful") authority, and so become liable to those thousands of cunning plans called "statutes", carefully crafted in order to rob you in a perfectly "legal" way.

[NotQuiteCockney]

Ha ha. It's hilarious. It's obviously a sort of pisstake.

I mean - it says that if your birth certificate has your name all in capital letters, then it's not valid.

And that if you agree with the statement "Do you understand me", in legal terms, you are saying that you stand under the speaker.

[Tortington]

is the legal thing bollocks though?

[Tortington]

legally

[LeBOF]

I just can't be arsed to read all that, sorry. But from a skim, it sounds a bit Waco-ish, doesn't it?

[LeBOF]

Ooh, what's got your pantaloons in a scrunch, BeerTricks?

[GirlWithALlamaTattoo]

Smells like complete and total bollocks from here!

[AmberLeaf]

Notquitecockney it would seem that its very serious! lots of people seem very taken in by it anyway....

[LeBOF]

It whooshed over my head, Beer- I thought you were on the rampage