Freedom is More Than Just a 7-Letter Word

People who are desperate for freedom in their lives are susceptible to any explanation that seems half-way plausible. Con artists take advantage of these people by manipulating them into thinking that the rules of the game are as they described them, lacking any kind of source citations proving the accuracy of their claims. Memes can be used to plant the seed of an accurate idea, but on the other hand, bullshit can travel just as easily.

 

 

Some political dissidents who assert that they understand what the law says strongly remind me of misguided children who think they know everything. Statements like, “All Law is Commerce; All Commerce is Contract; No Contract – No Case” smacks of when one of my nephews used to say, “All the toys in the box are mine,” and “Mommy is not the boss of me.” Just because someone said so does not therefore mean there is any sort of lawful authority or valid truth behind their claims at all; unfortunately, too many naïve libertarians swallow these fairy tales all too easily.

The author makes several questionable assertions right out of the gate. First, she says that “we” may not take more than “our fare share” (whatever that is supposed to mean is anyone’s guess). Second, she claims money is an illusion because the fiat currency is brought into circulation within the money supply by way of fractional reserve lending (obviously, she fails to distinguish between government fiat currency and free-market money). Third, she seems to have a major problem with law dictionaries changing the meaning of the words (I thought vernacular dictionaries did the same thing, don’t they?). Fourth, she then claims that religion is an illusion, but subsequently refused to explain why that is the case other than a brief reference to Zecharia Sitchin and his translation of some ancient Sumerian tablets (at least Peter Joseph tried to argue the case by describing the Bible as an “astrotheological literary hybrid”).

Somewhat similar to Mary Elizabeth: Croft, “Veronica: of the Chapman family” spells out her name thusly because, like Croft, she too is making a grammatical distinction between her natural person and what is claimed to be an artificial person bearing her name, as demonstrated whenever her name is completely capitalized (such as VERONICA CHAPMAN). Neither of these women have proven that their names, when completely capitalized, is evidence of an artificial person (what Chapman calls a “strawman”); she has also not proven that such an artificial person is evidence of her suffering from capitis dimunitio; and third, neither of them explain how it could be possible, according to the Federal Style Manual (16.1), than an attempt at “good appearance” would constitute a loss of liberty. Also, nearly everything else Chapman mentions 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. Again, I don’t think she either 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). As if that wasn’t bad enough, Chapman also rejects the use of Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms., because she considers them as titles indicating the STRAWMAN itself.

There are a few words Chapman uses that don’t seem to hold water. For instance, she says that there are four criteria for a contract to be enforceable:

 

“Full Disclosure: Which means that each Party writes down exactly what their promise comprises, and all the relevant circumstances, so as to put it into context they consider applicable. If one has any sense, any necessary ‘get outs’ should be included within the Full Disclosure.

“Equal Consideration: A Contractual Consideration is an ‘item of value.’ It may be money, or it may be an item. Both Parties must consider the exchange to be equal in value.

“Lawful Terms and Conditions: Which, fundamentally, means that there should be no mischief in the proposed agreements.

“Mutual Intent: Which means ‘some manifestation that each Party intended to Contract.’ This could be hand-written signature ‘marks,’ or can be ‘conduct.’ In other words if at least one of the Parties starts to do what was promised. This is sometimes expressed as ‘performance’ – or, at least, ‘the start of performance.’”

 

Last time I checked, a contract is an agreement between consenting parties. Any consideration is not limited to physical items, but may also be an exchange of labor. With regards to society, I think John Locke would vehemently disagree with Chapman’s application of the term as a type of civic organization that a member can resign from without having to move to another town. Her conception of the common law having four key rules initially sounds good, but lacks evidence:

 

1. Not breach the peace;
2. Cause no-one else any harm;
3. Cause no-one else any loss;
4. Not use mischief in your promises and agreements.

 

It is not made clear whether this is found somewhere in judicial case law, or if it is only a subjective observation of the common law itself. Finally, I don’t know whether “consensus facit legem” means “Consent makes the law;” even if it does, I sincerely doubt that idea has been held as acceptable by the courts.

What is unique that Chapman brings to the table is her recommendation that your rights can be “claimed” if you file a specific public notice called A Notice of Understanding and Intent and a Claim of Right (NOUICOR). The idea here seems to be that by getting such a document notarized by a public notary, it is allegedly possible for an individual to exempt himself from having to obey legal statutes (with lawful excuse to disobey the government, as it were). Unfortunately, Chapman’s own NOUICOR located in Appendix D asserts that:

 

“You can make your own Law. Law that applies only to you. It is (basically) an Affidavit and an Oath combined. A Statement of Truth…as you see it. Provided it is not objected to, in the manner described in the Chapter on Noticing, then it becomes Your Truth. Even though you may be wrong. Remember: If you were wrong, then it should have received objections within the stated time period.”

 

As she described within the chapter in question, her NOUICOR assumes that no government agent is going to challenge her, and by not doing so, the government is acquiescing to her claims that she is exempt from statute, and so on. Interestingly enough, this “reasonable amount of time” is no longer than two weeks.

Chapter 15, entitled Fundamental Established Axioms, may or may not be true, yet, there is no source citation proving that her eighteen claimed “axioms” are objectively true, judicially speaking. Although she has a point with regards to signatures, I can’t help but think that Chapman has trouble keeping her story straight, because first she said that the contest was between Common Law and Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction, but then she switched her tune to it being Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); does she claim that UCC is part of Admiralty? Then there is her assertion that court orders are like restaurant orders, in that both are chargeable for a bill. On top of it all, she is an admitted conspiracist; her biggest claim is that everything is an illusion. Make of that what you will.

Veronica: of the Chapman family’s Freedom is More Than Just a 7-Letter Word feels more like an atheist version of Croft’s book. Unlike Croft, though, Chapman when on to create a PowerPoint slide entitled, The Grand Deceptions, which she uses for her lectures, like the one she gave at Truth Juice in Wales not that long ago. Other than her recommendation on filing a NOUICOR, which includes a fee schedule, I don’t really see anything else uniquely different, or more importantly, anything truly useful about Chapman’s book. Like Croft, Chapman shares the unfounded assumption that ALL CAPTIAL LETTERS written on bills and other legal documents must therefore prove that every citizen suffers from some sort of capitis dimunitio, which I consider to be a nonsequiter. Interestingly though, Chapman mentions Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst by name, although I still fear that Gravenhorst never got around to publicly admitting whether or not she defeated the government’s attempt to change the locks on her foreclosed home.