Political dissidents have been trying to understand what the Law is, and what it is not. Many of them attempt to interpret the jumble of legalese they read into some sort of cohesive sounding legal theory. Unfortunately, too many of them persist in their errors, even after several judges in multiple court cases have ruled those interpretations to be incorrect (at least, according to the government).
Much of this book is little more than the author demonstrating that she is a religious conspiracist. While her subjective views about the nature of humanity are entertaining, I fail to see what they have anything at all to do with either law or money. There’s also the sneaking suspicion I have that among all the pseudo-metaphysical drivel she spouts, her book appears to be a regurgitating advertisement for A Course in Miracles, which itself seems to be little more than a brainwashing propaganda tool designed to trick the reader into thinking that nothing objectively exists.
It is possible to save a lot of time and effort by merely reading the summary on one page towards the end of the book, where the author’s three main arguments are presented concisely, her first one claiming that:
“The name on any charging instrument, e.g.: traffic tickets, tax bills, statements, loans, lawsuits, debts, etc. is not your name. It is the name of the government-created corporation, cleverly disguised, in upper case letters, by the bureaucrats, to resemble your name. Do not blow off this fact. It is to deceive you into believing you are liable for its debts. You are not. Check the name on any government-issued ID you have. Your name is not on it. By the way, this applies also in reverse: What you think you ‘own,’ e.g.: your house, because you think it is in your name, is not in your name, ergo, you do not own it. The Commerce Game was set up by the Global Elite/World Bank to confiscate your funds and property in order to make economic slaves of the entire population of a New World Order under their corporate control.”
Where is the proof that this assertion is true? “Mary Elizabeth: Croft” spells out her name thusly because she seems to believe that by doing so, she is making the grammatical distinction between her natural person and a supposed artificial person that, allegedly as a corporation, is attached to herself, as demonstrated whenever her name is completely capitalized (such as MARY ELIZABETH CROFT). There are several problems with this line of reasoning. First, she has not proven that her name, when completely capitalized, is evidence of an artificial person; second, she has not proven that such an artificial person is evidence of her suffering from capitis dimunitio; third, how does she explain the fact that according the Federal Style Manual, 16.1, it clearly states:
“The general principle involved in the typography of datelines, addresses, and signatures is that they should be set to stand out clearly from the body of the letter or paper that they accompany. This is accomplished by using caps and small caps and italics, as set forth below. Other typographic details are designed to ensure uniformity and good appearance. Street addresses and ZIP Code numbers are not to be used. In certain lists that carry ZIP Code numbers, regular spacing will be used preceding the ZIP Code. Certain general instructions apply alike to datelines, addresses, and signatures.”
How does an attempt at “good appearance” constitute a loss of liberty? Everything else she mentions, particularly in this line of argumentation, is predicated upon her being completely accurate on her interpretation about the relationship a natural person allegedly has with an artificial person bearing the same name. I don’t think she has adequately demonstrated such to be the case, especially seeing how the government has consistently rejected similar arguments (such as in United States v. Frech, United States v. Washington, and United States v. Ford).
Mary Elizabeth: Croft’s next argument is where she asserts:
“The only law in existence today is Contract Law. What you think of as ‘laws’ are only statutes and do not apply to you; they apply only to corporations. If you have no contract with the entity from which you receive a charging instrument, you are not financially liable…and…you couldn’t possibly have a contract because corporations cannot lawfully contract. What you signed was a unilateral, and hence, unenforceable contract. All Law is Commerce; All Commerce is Contract; No Contract – No Case. There is not one government agency, department, or ministry in the world that can prove that you must pay what we have all been indoctrinated to believe we are ‘bound by law’ to pay. Do not fall for this incredible deception any longer. Your ticket to financial freedom is to REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE.”
If that were true, then how do you explain tort law? Whenever there is damage to person or property, and the accused is brought into court, there is no contract at play, but only whether retributive or restitutional justice will take place based upon a conviction of the defendant’s guilt. Also, where is the proof that legal statutes only apply to artificial persons? Croft contradicts herself here when she claims that corporations cannot contract, for the very simple reason that they can, because they are artificial persons, pursuant to that horrid 14th Amendment. And what does “remembering” that you are a natural person have to do with securing your liberty at all?
Croft’s final argument is that:
“The only way out of this mess is to remove ourselves from the Commerce Game – completely – so that we are no longer dependent upon banksters. Their sole agenda is to control and destroy us. The only way to win is not to play. Compensation which involves the banks is hazardous; we can create for ourselves all that is way bigger and better – love and light, peace and joy, compassion and forgiveness – that which we were meant to Be, Do, and Have. By remembering who we are we will learn to do what we love to do and serve ourselves by serving others, thereby leaving the banksters completely out of our new way of life. It is happening.”
Here, I will wholeheartedly agree with her that the power of noncompliance encompasses a valuable series of techniques; however, how do you stop using Federal Reserve Notes in your daily life? More importantly, how do you revoke your consent to be governed? Apparently, Croft has about as much interest in answering that last question as The Anti-Terrorist does, which is to say, none at all.
Mary Elizabeth: Croft’s How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known to Man: A Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are is a totally useless book written by one of those alleged “Freemen-on-the-Land.” I reiterate, where is the evidence proving that a citizen’s name, as printed in all capitalized letters, demonstrates that a citizen’s status suffers from capitis dimunitio? This unfounded assumption that ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on bills and other legal documents must therefore prove that every citizen suffers from some form of capitis dimunitio is literally a nonsequitur. I think everyone, including the so-called “Freemen,” would be better off double-checking their if arguments happen to include any common fallacies in their reasoning. Perhaps once the Freemen present cogently reasoning arguments, instead of fallacious ones, then maybe their claims would bear serious reexamination.
The Last Bastille 