The Strawman Myth
A straw man is, in legal vernacular, a fictitious person, especially one who is weak or flawed. (Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Ed., at 1585) There are three other definitions provided, but none of them are applicable to the instant discussion.
Several on the path to self-governance have accepted the myth that the named entity in a court case, on a bill, or on a ticket, is a straw man, and hence they believe the proper challenge is to call out that a straw man is being employed, then declare they are not the straw man. Many may recall Westley Snipes, in a tax evasion case, made this exact statement to reporters as he walked from the federal court building.
As the myth goes, the all capital letters name is used to refer to the fictional entity, or straw man, and as this is a government construct, the jurisdiction over the fictional entity is presupposed. Hence, if one claims they are not the straw man, then the court will be frustrated in their effort to dispense with the matter. This myth is perpetuated by the fact the legal definition invokes the description of a person, which, in legal vernacular, is amongst other definitions, an entity such as a corporation that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human being. One can find support for this in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, at 1285, definition #3 as well as in their State laws defining the term person.
As many, like Westly Snipes, has learned, this particular approach fails. To the credit of Mr. Snipes, he acknowledged that he had been misled by some people who instructed him about the straw man myth, and he chose to move away from this particular myth. However, it is important to comprehend why this myth has some appeal, and more importantly what the nature of the myth and reality is.
The straw man myth stems from a bastardized concept of the estate. It is easy to do when one does not fully comprehend the use of conspicuous writing, or how this is employed to draw the attention of the Executor to the fact the estate is being named as the party to the suit.
For clarity, conspicuous writing is defined in Black’s Law 9th addition, at 379, as “(Of a term or clause) clearly visible or obvious. Whether a printed clause is conspicuous as a matter of law usu. depends on the size and style of the typeface. Under the UCC, a term or clause is conspicuous if it is written in a way that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to notice it. UCC § 1-201(10). See FINE PRINT.”
Unfortunately, because the use of conspicuous writing is not well comprehended, or at least it was not when the straw man myth was proffered and given legs, many people have been caught in this particular looking glass. As explained within the Academy for the Self Governing, the conspicuous writing is not referring to a straw man, it is a naming of the estate. This is done because the estate is where the money is, i.e. the extrinsic value, and the fact is that every legal action is a civil action in rem.
In rem is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at 892, as “[Latin “against a thing”] Involving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing. Also termed (archaically) impersonal. See action in rem under ACTION (4). Cf. IN PERSONAM.” See also, In re, meaning “in re (in ree or ray). [Latin “in the matter of”] (1877) (Of a judicial proceeding) not formally including adverse parties, but rather involving something (such as an estate). The term is often used in case citations, esp. in uncontested proceedings <In re Butler’s Estate>. Also termed matter of.”
This leads us to the Corporation Myth.
A related myth to that of the straw man myth is the myth that the all capital letters name is a corporation. As the reasoning of this myth goes, as the names of corporations are, typically, represented by all capital letters, such a GM, AT&T, COMPAQ, COSTCO, and the like, then the all capital letters name used in a court case or on a bill must also refer to a corporation.
This reasoning is not ‘wrong’ so much as it is incompletely considered. When a corporation is formed, there are several documents that must be filed with the Secretary of State that are used to ensure the corporation is a lawfully formed and operated entity. One of these documents is the Fictitious Name Statement, which provides the name of the corporation with a declaration of the individual giving energy or animating the corporation.
Whether the corporation is named after the owner, in which case the Fictitious Name Statement does no always need to be filed, or if the corporation will be doing business under the fictional name, all corporations have to have an Employer Identification Number, or EIN at the time of or before formation. A corporate officer disclosure is also typically filed with the Secretary of State.
For clarification, The EIN system was created by the IRS in 1974 by Treasury Decision (TD) 7306, 39 Fed. Reg. 9946. The authority for EINs is derived from 26 USC 6011(b), requiring taxpayer identification for the purpose of payment of employment taxes.
Some would argue in defense of this myth that the EIN and the Social Security Numbers are the same thing. However, this again, is based on a miscomprehension. The best history on the Social Security Number is that the first Social Security Number was issued in 1936. The history, as explained by the Social Security Administration, of the Social Security Number is that it was created “for the sole purpose of tracking the earnings histories of U.S. workers, for use in determining Social Security benefit entitlement and computing benefit levels.”
When one reads the initial disclosure from 1936 (see TMPC website) it is clear that the Social Security Number is a trust account number. In recent political arenas this much has been openly admitted, which makes it curious that the Corporation Myth and the Strawman Myth are still being pushed as true.
The corporate filings required vary from state to state, and every state has its own regulations that require at least some corporate filings to be made. This is where the Corporation Myth can be pierced. If the myth were factual, then the required filings could easily be found, yet whenever a search for the various required filings for a valid corporation is made, nothing can be found. This lack of evidence rebuts and disproves the Corporation Myth.
However, if the seeker is not quite satisfied with the evidence presented above, the seeker is urged to consider one final fact that should settle the matter. In any court case, civil or criminal, where a corporation is charged or sued, the court requires the corporation to be represented by an attorney. There is no option for pro se or in propria persona self-representation, as the sixth amendment does not extend to corporations. However, a man or woman who is charged in a court of law, or sued, may proceed to defend the cause brought against them without the requirement that they secure counsel. Though counsel is strongly urged, counsel in these respects is not required.
If the myth that the all capital letters name represent a corporation were factually based, the law would require an attorney to represent the cause of the corporation. The fact this is not done evidences there is more to the all capital letters name than being a mere corporation.