Forum:A question about pseudo law.

< Index | General discussion

Legend

Just to make reading easier, I have given names to the charaters in this story:
Kris - A family member of mine who is an altie, conspiracy theorist, easy money investor and survivalist who is recently diving head-first into pseudo law.
Mark - The scam artist who is "teaching" her about all of this pseudo law, and taking her money.
Hollie - Another family member who is stuck in the same situation as me and is helping me try to make sense of it, and talk reason to Kris.

The Saga Begins

Hi everyone,

I'm wondering if anyone can help me and/or point me in the direction of further reading.
I post here becasue I couldn't find any articles on RW about this particular topic.

I have a family member who is beginning to dabble in pseudolaw (along the lines of Freeman on the Land, Sovereign citizen, Redemption movement etc.).
She has told me a story of a friend who has a magic formula for winning any, and every court case ever. (I asked if her friend was a lawyer, and she said "not really").

Apparently, all you need to do (as the defence) is use a lot of double-negatives and deliberately phrase your questions so as to get the prosecutor to answer "no" three times to the same question.
(I didn't get from her if the topic of the question was important, or if it was just any question).

After the prosecution answers "no" to the same question three times, the defence wins automatically.
(Apparently all lawyers know this technique, and the prosecutor in her story actively avoided and disuaded the defence from asking the question again).
This also is supposedly based on the bible (the KJV version no less) mentioning a "rule of three", which therefore gives it much weight in the vein of Appeal to ancient wisdom.

I am certain that this story is, putting it lightly, horse excrement, but I am curious as to whether anyone else has heard of this magic "3 Nos = Win" formula?

Thank you in advance for any help/advice.
dEcib3L

o_0 This one is completely novel to me. If you can find out any details, they would be highly on-mission for RW.

Advice: The hard part now is that your family member is journeying down a completely logic-impervious rabbit hole, and how to protect her from herself. Pure discussion is unlikely to have any impact at all, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, I will no doubt hear more about this the next time I speak with her, as there is never a visit to her place without being offered my own aluminium foil hat.

Well, no need to worry there, she is already so far down the rabbit hole she is beyond help. Conspiracy theories, altie 'medicine', crystals, pseudoscience, pyramid schemes, you name it, she's into it. The pseudolaw is just the latest thing.

RW has been a great resource for me over the last few years, helping me stay relatively sane, and play bingo with all the crazy that comes my way.

dEcib3L 09:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If a prosecutor says "no" three times in a row, the prosecutor is banished back to the dimension it spawned from. You don't win the case from there; without a prosecutor present the court is forced to give you a trial by ordeal, where you must wrestle the man-eating beast, swim for a mile in the pool of darkness without coming up for breath, and satisfy the Judge's daughter. But it's been so long since they've done any of that the beast starved to death, the water evaporated, and the Judge's daughter is in a relationship. CorruptUser (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, this theory carries as much weight as the explaination in my original post, perhaps even more so! :-p

dEcib3L 01:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some folkloristic use of the number 3, motif "Z71.1. Formulistic number: three" in Stith Thompson’s Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (1993). This might give the number some vague extra weight in one's mind if one has the right fairy tales (e.g., Rumpelstiltskin). Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was always wondering about that pseudolaw thing...

I mean, the legal system is an arbitraty set of rules created by humans. Unlike the laws of nature, which humans can't change and in many areas don't even understand, so I guess I can understand why people believe things like crystals and alt med. But pseudolaw? what, these people believe society is just grown up kindergarten where we're all playing a game we came up with 5 minutes ago, making up the rules along the way? If a person wants to see if a law exists, he opens a law book, and finds it. If someone claims they know a friend that used some BS tactic like the above and won, well could he please show the trial transcript? Seriously, please explain this. Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 21:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This is explained in Freeman on the land - people feel confused and powerless, so they grasp at straws - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just like how plenty fundies aren't particularly informed about what's in the Bible, there's plenty people who think they know the law without ever bothering to look stuff up in a law book. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to see the transcript too (though I doubt its' existence).

The way this family member told me the story, it was like she was recounting an exciting drama movie she just saw, and her friend was the hero underdog who stood up for the little guy, another common theme in conspiracy theories, pseudolaw and other areas.

I am uncertain whether she has read the bible herself, or just been told this and is repeating it verbatim, as she is (as I mentioned) willing to accept anything that agrees with her world view.

I still welcome discussion on this topic, as I'm interested to hear what others think.

dEcib3L 06:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering more about the "rule of 3"-thing - that sounds more like a certain TV series or the Islamic divorce procedure (for men only, of course) than something out of King James. Try getting some details on the chapter and verse which supposedly underpins this "magical formula".

Just off the top of my head, I can only think of Peter's 3-fold denial of Jesus, but why that should have some sort of relevance, I have no idea (especially since, according to Christian tradition, Peter still became the first Pope afterwards) ScepticWombat (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, that was a good show back in the day! :-)

I can try to get the specific bible verses from her, however I suspect that she has not actually read it herself, but is merely relaying what she's been told, by a friend of a friend of a friend etc.

Basically, all the info in the first section of this thread is all I have to work with at this stage.

dEcib3L 07:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting either an answer straight away, or that the "rule of 3" was based on your pseudolaw crank magnetist having a deep understanding of the bible; I was simply curious about this specific example of "things people think is in the bible, but isn't". Looking forward to more info on the development of both the pseudolegal stuff and the bible (mis)interpretation, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, will keep you posted.

dEcib3L 08:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The saga continues

So I got a little more info yesterday regarding this.
My family member is definitely calling herself a "Sovereign citizen", or at least talking about her "sovereign rights", is planning on paying her bills with some supposed secret bank account that the government keeps for every person (i.e. Redemption movement), and intends to avoid paying tax and speeding/parking fines etc. (i.e. Freeman on the land and Strawman theory).

All of this she learned at a BIG conference called the Freedom Summit, basically Woodstock for alties, CTs and anyone looking for an easy way out of paying tax etc. I will try to write an article on this at some point, as I think it would be very on-mission.

The guy she described as magically winning court cases, Mark (mentioned in my original post), is also the one telling her all this information (but at a cost, of course).
She has also invested in some new unrelated scheme of his and signed a confidentiality agreement at his request (a red flag for me), and she has described this as an "opportunity" (another red flag) and got paranoid and defensive when I asked more about it (more red flags than China).
So Mark is basically just the latest in a long line of gurus that she is following blindly, investing huge amounts of money, trust and dignity.

To be continued...
dEcib3L 02:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy Moly! That snake oil salesman must've had a field day; I wonder if he didn't get rotating dollar signs in his eyes and audible "Kaching!" sounds breaking out around him when this took place. And she's actually paying for this shite?!?

Getting paranoid when queried could be either a sign that the cultish thinking has already dug very deep, or that you're poking a sore spot where at some level she realise that all this sounds exceedingly fishy and that she's actually embarrassed by what she at some level is already suspecting is a scam.

Looking forward very much to the next episode in this tragicomedy and even more to a future article on it. (PS. Perhaps an essay as a big, personal experience story in addition to an article?) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure at the very least all that was happening in his head, and yes, even though he "teaches" people these techniques on how to evade tax, pay their bills with secret government money etc. that apparently work for him all the time, he somehow still needs to charge nearly AUD$1,500 to do it. Hey, a guy's gotta eat after all.

I think the paranoia is a little from column A, a little from column B. She does also know that I don't agree with her views and beliefs (though doesn't show it much), so may have thought I was testing her.

In her mind, I am one of the brainwashed sheeple who just "doesn't know what's really going on" (I need to open my mind) and she is working hard to make me see the light, funny huh.

An essay could also happen, I guess at the very least it may help someone else going through the same situation, and would be a little cathartic for me too.

Are you from down under too mate?

dEcib3L 08:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, 'fraid not mate, though I did spend several wonderful months backpacking around Aussie and Kiwi land years ago, I'm actually from the other side of the globe (pretty literally as far away as you can get without leaving planet Earth), but no worries, I'm not a pommie bastard either ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah cool, I was thinking because of the wombat in your name.

I will continue to add to this page as more dramas happen, and will think about getting everything together for an essay as well.

dEcib3L 00:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So I have a small update about this.
Hollie agreed to attend one of Mark's "information nights", in our nearest city (for the purposes of gathering information about this operation).
As well as the seminar, she also had to spend 3 hours stuck in a car with Kris and Kris' osteopath with them both pointing out chemtrails in the sky, talking about how Bill Gates is supposedly pushing for (black) babies under 3 years old to be killed for.....some reason... and the osteopath creepily feeling Hollie's leg.

She got to see Mark in action, and according to her he is quite a boring fellow with a monotone voice that could cure insomnia. I thought con artists and cult leaders won their followers with charisma and style, but apparently not this guy.

Most of the seminar was Mark just explaining how income tax works, with little (if any) pdeudo law woo at all, which seems strange. However, I suspect that this is the point, to drag it out, so as to get more "information", you would of course have to attend many seminars, at around AUD$15 each for a week night, or much, much more for a Saturday session. (Always leave them wanting!).

At the end, he was swamped like a celebrity by people asking all kinds of questions. Kris then approached him and whispered something in his ear, only to be told "not yet".
Remember, she has also invested in some easy money scheme of his that involved her signing a non-disclosure agreement (see above).
I have a rough idea that her question was probably something like:
- "Can I talk about this investment with Hollie and others yet?", or;
- "Has there been any profit from this investment yet?".

So, we are getting closer to the point of Kris getting fined or arrested and/or Hollie and I getting unwillingly roped into being a part of her shenanigans. As always, I will add more details as they become available.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of Would I Lie to You?!
dEcib3L 08:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, keep it up! Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 10:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Argh! A cliffhanger! You're killing me with pent up curiosity! Looking very much forward to the next episode, especially any news about the supposed biblical basis for the rule of three. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased that some of you are getting a laugh out of this too! :-)

My usual reaction to Kris' shenanigans is a mixture of laughter, disappointment and sighing, lots and lots of sighing.

In a related note, is anyone familiar with this Bill Gates thing? Apparently he and a number of other rich elites (read: evil people who rule the world) are advocating the mandatory euthenasia of (predominantly black) babies under 3 years old. I have no idea why they would do this, but it sounds like there is a link to some kind of racist conspiracy theory there, not sure which.

This is all just coming from Kris and her osteopath though, who I'm told is just as far down that rabbit hole too.

Anyone know anything about it?

dEcib3L 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a spin-off of the fact that the Gates Foundation promotes the availability of birth control. Which we all know fundies think is just really early murder. It's not bill who's behind that part of the initiative, of course, it's Melinda. But she's not an easy mental target for anti-elite conspiracy theories. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that could be it, sounds plausible. dEcib3L 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, just knowing that Osteopath exists creeps me out to no end. That guy is going to force himself on your cousin...CorruptUser (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep... dEcib3L 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All these spaces are freaking me out man! Anyway, Alties generally get in trouble with the law for a number of things. Figure out the guy's full name, run a background check, anything you can find on him. There are services that do the checks for like $40 or so, but IDK Aussie law though still might be worth looking into. CorruptUser (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, sorry about the big spaces, to me it just looks neater and easier to read. Also easier to tell when each new person is speaking.

dEcib3L 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah it's real easy when close together, just indent slightly more. Deleted spaces to show you. Also sign your posts by typing "~~ ~~" (no space in between). CorruptUser (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What our corrupt colleague meant to say was 'by typing "~~~~" '. There's also a "sign" icon in the bar above the edit window, if that fits your style better. Either method applies a time stamp, and links to your user and talk pages. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I do the four tildes but for some reason it doesn't give me the link to my user page like it does everyone else... dEcib3L 00:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[insert funny title here]

So there hasn't been much movement on the original story, but I thought I might give an update for anyone wishing to follow the drama/comedy that is my life.

All I have heard about the pseudo law angle from Kris lately is that she wants Hollie and I to attend a big seminar (costing a few hundred dollaree doos per person, per seminar) in order to open our minds etc etc.
We both conveniently have other committments every time though, but eventually this will come to a head and we will have to just flat out tell her no (this is a hard thing to do, believe me).
We do know that her "investment" with guru Mark involves one of the tax haven pacific island nations, so that all sounds legit right?...

Now, for the unrelated but still horribly dramatic and/or funny (depending on how you look at it).

A few years ago, Kris moved both herself and her elderly parents from their separate homes all into the one house. Her reasoning was that she could be the carer for them both (and collect the government payments too no doubt).
Her father Barry has just turned 90 last week, but at his birthday gathering, Hollie and I find out that Kris has shoved him out into a nursing home already.

Since Kris moved them all into the one house, she has spent these last few years creating separate trusts not in her parent's names (but with her in control) and not-for-profit foundations (as fronts), liquidating all their investments and buying rental properties with the money (under these trusts that she controls, but officially buying them as the NFP foundation so she doesn't have to pay the tax on the purchases). I find it a little too convenient that as soon as she has control of all her parent's money and assets, Barry gets shoved into a nursing home. We are certain that her elderly mother (aged 89) will see the same fate in the next six months).
Hollie went to collect a few of Barry's personal items to lighten up his room in the nursing home and Kris snapped a little, yelling about how she doesn't care about Barry and just wants him to die.
Hollie has now temporarily cut off contact with Kris as a result, however this isn't the end because one thing Kris is REALLY good at is pretending everything is fine and moving on as if nothing has happened.

If this was not enough, Kris has also been playing another family member off against us, telling him how hard she suffers and how much of a martyr she is, and not to believe anything Hollie and I say (and she named us specifically).

The day is coming when this will all explode in a massive shit fight not yet seen in our family and I am considering cutting off contact with Kris altogether as I believe she is truly beyond help.
But hey, at least you guys and girls here can get some entertainment! :-)
dEcib3L 02:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Damn. Sorry to hear this is happening, dude. It was one thing when she was digging her own grave, but now getting her parents and their money involved? Does she have any siblings?

Things will definitely not end well when the family fallout occurs and when she has a rather vicious attack dog after her... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

She did have a sister, who died from cancer several years ago, which makes her a perfect ally to back up anything Kris says by saying "[my sister] knew about this and was informed, she would agree with me".

Of course, it's easy to speak for someone who isn't there to speak for themselves.

I suspect that the entire reason for moving herself and her parents into the same house was so that she could get control of everything, even that she planned this from the start. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me at all if this were the case.

Yes, she's definitely digging her own grave, it just that she's determined to pull the rest of us down with her, as she is convinced (in her own way) that she is doing the right thing...

How do you convince a fanatic that what they believe in with all their heart is wrong?

dEcib3L 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another small update for those who are following this riveting tale of woe.
- Hollie is back to doing semi-regular visits with myself and having to find new ways to NOT attend a session with their favourite osteopath friend (the creep).
- Kris is back to pretending everything is fine, and is attending every single seminar that Mark has, paying who knows how much for each one, and being strung along as usual.
- She and some fellow 'sovereign citizens' are supposedly considering moving to Vanuatu as I imagine it is probably a tax haven, and possibly/probably where their non-disclosure "investment" with Mark is based.

So that's it for now, for this series that certainly would have never made it past pilot episode if it were a TV show.
Enjoy! dEcib3L 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)