The Enigma of the Strawman Theory: A Pseudolegal Illusion

Introduction to the Strawman Theory

At the crossroads of conspiracy and pseudolaw lies the strawman theory, a concept as convoluted as it is intriguing. Originating in the late 1990s, this theory has found a home among various fringe groups, including the redemption movement, sovereign citizens, and tax protesters. The central premise is simple yet fantastical: each individual supposedly has two identities—one of flesh and blood, and the other a separate legal entity known as the "strawman."

Proponents of this theory assert that legal obligations and liabilities belong not to the living person but to their strawman. This belief leads followers to attempt to dissociate themselves from their strawman, hoping to evade legal responsibilities and taxes. However, this theory is widely discredited and recognized as a scam. Courts have consistently rejected arguments based on the strawman theory, and authorities like the FBI and IRS consider it a frivolous and fraudulent concept.

Origins and Development

The strawman theory emerged around 1999-2000, birthed by Roger Elvick, a North Dakota farmer turned pseudolegal activist. Elvick, a key figure in the redemption movement, designed the strawman theory to complement his broader pseudolegal beliefs. Eldon Warman, a Canadian adherent, introduced these ideas into Canada, adapting them for a new audience. The freeman on the land movement further reframed the theory, spreading its influence across Commonwealth countries.

Core Assertions and Misinterpretations

Central to the strawman theory is the notion that individuals possess two personas. Upon a child's birth in the U.S., the issuance of a birth certificate and Social Security number supposedly establishes a secret Treasury account, allegedly funded with amounts ranging from $600,000 to $20 million. This account, according to believers, marks the beginning of the split between the tangible person and the corporate shell—the strawman.

A common misinterpretation fueling this theory is the ancient Roman legal term "capitis deminutio," which followers incorrectly link to the use of capital letters in legal documents. They claim that names written in all caps signify the strawman, while the natural person retains their name in standard format.

Another layer to this theory is the belief that governments are bankrupt corporations using citizens as collateral. The birth certificate, they argue, creates a strawman, allowing the government to take loans against this fictitious persona.

Legal Challenges and Rejection

Despite its allure to some, the strawman theory has met unwavering rejection in courts worldwide. Legal scholar Donald J. Netolitzky describes it as part of a broader "Pseudolaw Memeplex," lacking any legal foundation. In Canada, tax protester Russell Porisky attempted to use the theory to avoid taxes but was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to prison in 2016.

Notably, in 2012, Justice John D. Rooke of Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the strawman theory in the landmark Meads v. Meads decision. The court categorically stated that there is only one legal identity per person, quashing the notion of a separate legal layer.

International and Modern Responses

The theory's influence knows no borders, having inspired variations like the "legal name fraud" movement in the United Kingdom. This and similar concepts have been repeatedly dismissed in courts as nonsensical. In 2021, the District Court of Queensland described strawman arguments as "gobbledygook," emphasizing the inseparability of legal and natural personhood.

Despite these legal repudiations, the strawman theory persists among certain circles, a testament to its complex allure and the enduring appeal of pseudolegal narratives. Yet, as courts continue to dismantle its claims, the theory remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of pseudolegal beliefs.

Sources

You can find the original Wikipedia article on the Strawman theory here.