I have nearly completed the text of a 65-page document focusing solely on the pseudolaw concept of the strawman, the belief that a “legal person” is somehow distinct from a physical human being, created by the government through birth registration and then linked to the physical person as a kind of parasitic twin or doppelganger, providing the mechanism by which state actors exert their otherwise illegitimate legislated authority over the physical “man”.
This document will be added to this page once it is completed and published, when it will become available for purchase through the Freeman Delusion store.
The term “ORGANIC CONSTITUTION” refers to a constitution in its original format, without amendments or changes in interpretation that fundamentally altered its character. In the US, most groups that use the term refer to the enactments that existed before the US Civil War, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and first 12 amendments. The 13th and 14th Amendments, which ended slavery and created the status of a US Citizen (and subsequent enactments) are considered by many groups to be unconstitutional.
Here in Australia, the “organic constitution” is what existed prior to what is considered to have worked a fundamental constitutional change, which is basically, the effects of the agreements reached at the Imperial Conferences, the Balfour Agreement 1926, which resulted in the Statute of Westminster 1930. The subsequent enactments are considered to be unconstitutional, including the Citizenship Act 1948, which created the status of an Australian Citizen. But the main objects of contention are the Royal Style and Titles Acts 1953 and 1973, and the Australia Act 1986, which in effect, removed the UK government from Australian affairs, and replaced any allegiance to its monarch.
Both examples relate to the “organic constitution” providing a type of STATUS, that was in effect, overwritten by the creation of another form of status, which is rejected by the theory. In the US, it is the status of a “State National” that is generally referred to, in rejecting the status of a “US Citizen“. In Australia, it is generally the status of a “British Subject” that is referred to, in rejecting the status of an “Australian Citizen”. The pseudolaw concept is all about the type of STATUS that one insists on.
The strawman duality is the latter development of this theory, looking at the concept of legal personality as opposed to a type of status afforded by prior constitutional structures. It is much broader than the localised examples above, but the concept is the same, referring back to the status of a “natural person” or “living man“, in rejecting the creation and adoption of any other type of status, the main object of contention being the status of a citizen or subject, of anything. Instead of referring to a man-made “organic constitution” as a point in time and associated status to which is adhered, the “living man” status is much older, with the contentious development being the creation of legal personality itself, along with the enlightenment era notions of natural law and man in a state of nature.
The status of an “Original Sovereign” is much aligned with this pseudolaw school of thought. It refers to the spoken word, the customary Indigenous lore, created by Baiame, creator god and sky father in the Dreaming, since time immemorial, not some mere man-made status. This can be contrasted with the status afforded by the “United Kingdom of Australia” school of thought, which refers to a status of “subject of the Australian Crown” as a distinct and separate allegiance, to notions of allegiance to the UK Crown, or to the current Australian government and its associated citizenship.
Putting aside the supra legal qualities and legal immunity that these theories hold, these examples refer to a type of status that has recently been recognised by the High Court in Love v Commonwealth  HCA 3, that of a “non-citizen, non-alien“.
It is ultimately believed that adopting this status removes any obligation to Australian law, a consequence of the rejection of any association, formal or otherwise, with the entity perceived as the current government. Coupled with several other pseudolaw concepts, the “government is a corporation“, “invisible contracts” and “silence is agreement” notions, the existence of this status validates the notion of the theory’s assumed contractual nature of the relationship between the individual and the current government, a paradigm that is argued cannot apply to the individual without their consent.
You must log in to post a comment.