Site Search

 Copyright Name Publish Common law Documents




THE FICTION OF LAW Reflections on the Strawman
- Les Raketti 10/13/2006

It is my contention that unless you understand the difference between man-made laws and universal laws you will never ever be free in the sense that you will always be a prisoner of your own mind. The sayings below are very appropriate:

'There is no better slave than a slave who
thinks he is free' - unknown author.

"You mean to tell me that my delusion is not
real" - Marshall McLuhan

"You are a slave Neo" - from the Movie, "The

Most people are unaware that the name they see on their
bankcard is not them but a legal entity that is called a
"straw man". This legal creation has a direct bearing on
your quality of life and everyone - without exception - is
impacted by it.

We have a tendency to think that the name on our Bank
Cards is us - nothing can be further from the truth. I
will go on to explain why this can never be so and why
though this legal creation you have unwittingly given
away all your personal power and are putting everything
have worked for all your life at risk. It is a fact that what you think you have, you can lose at a moments notice - that is unless you claim it back.

But before you think I am off my rocker or some conspiracy nut let me say that the generation who grew up in the 1930s had a great distrust for Banks after they lost their savings. This will give you an inkling as to how vulnerable they were and you are and how it can happen again.

As you will see none of this is rocket science but just plain common sense. You will realize just how clever the legal beagles are and why they have claimed the fictional domain as their exclusive territory. Enjoy.

In its most basic sense a 'straw man", your name in all capital letters represents a man but isn't a man, much in the same way a corporation (read corpse) is a non living entity and has many but not all of the attributes of a living man.

Both the corporation and the straw man are creations of
human mind and as since they do not exist in nature - the world of substance - they can only be 'fictions'.

It may be instructive to look up the term "fiction of
law' in Black's legal dictionary.

Incidentally Black's Legal dictionary first
came into existence with the creation of the
United States and is revised every 20 years
since - giving every successive generation an
opportunity to register any objection to
changes in its words and their definitions.

I suspect this is the dictionary George Orwell
is referring to in his book 1984 where in the
world of doublethink every revision of the
dictionary has fewer and fewer words.

For example the word anarchy before its meaning
was codified in its original meaning it had positive attributes, it meant freedom (an=not arch=chief). Today it means chaos or disorder which has negative connotations.

That I find extremely interesting because of our recent understanding of chaos theory there is an underlying organization or natural order to apparently random events. But I digress.

'Fiction Of Law'

Black's Legal Dictionary 5th ed. p. 562

"An assumption or supposition of law that
something which is or may be false is true, or
that a state of facts exists which has never
really taken place.

An assumption for purposes of justice, of a
fact that does not or may not exist.

A rule of law which assumes as true, and will
not allow to be disapproved, something is
false, but it not impossible."

The use of the straw man became a necessity in law to order to make a bridge between a living human being and non-living entity.

In itself it does not make any sense as to why this would even be necessary. I will prove to you using common sense that it is not only necessary but there is no other way around it.

Why is a man not a man - in the legal sense of the

I contend that this legal definition of a man who is not a man is an inevitable necessity build-in to who we are as creators. We can not avoid it even though it seems to be an inherent contradiction defying common sense. Nevertheless it serves a purpose all the same.

Its like The Oxymoron, 'Agreeing To Disagree' but Only because it makes sense to do so. Its a way of getting by an impasse. The concept of the straw man is used to bypass legal issues as well as ethical issues. The only question that concerns you is whether this is to your benefit or not so you
can act accordingly.

I would like to give you a simple example as to how the concept of a straw man can be useful in a positive sense. How it has been legally applied unethically is a topic for another essay. In this essay the intention is to establish a clear distinction of what is a 'legal fiction' and what it is 'not' so that people come into awareness and have no delusions.


For example if it was the understood by all in a tribal society that the eldest son would inherit all the property upon the fathers's death - what would happen if they were no male heirs?

One solution or legal work around would be for the family to adopt a specially made male figurine to take the place of the male heir - that figurine is the concept of the 'Straw man" in practice.

The figurine acts as a 'STAND-IN'.

Everyone in the legal community, turns a blind eye so to speak, not recognizing that figurine is not a living human being but technically (legally) the family has a male heir and their property stays within the family. Everything is fair and equitable and all are happy and the small children are none the wiser.

Today if we are to know why the 'straw man' is used today in our society it helps to understand the function of language and make a distinction between what is the natural world and the man made world - the world of fiction.

WORDS are merely SYMBOLS of Reality.

When I say a 'house ' do I mean - my house? - your
house? - the house on the hill? - the white house on
the hill? - or the dream house I imagine in my mind?

WORDS are a representation or STAND-INS OF REALITY and
as such they are full of ambiguity and open to interpretation. This is why words in the legal sense need to be defined as they are open to intrepretion. This is our first clue as to why you can never be the name on your bank card.

In contrast universal laws and things that exist in the natural world are consistent - "A rose is a rose is a rose." (Gertrude Stein). The laws of the universe apply to all and never ever change. Laws in the man made world in constrast are discretionary, they do not apply to all and are constantly changing. In regard to man made laws one can always ask the question, "Does this apply to me or not?" in nature it never is a question.


Natural Laws are UNIVERSAL - like gravity they apply equally to everybody and everything there
are no exceptions.


Man made Laws are Not universal as they are always EXCEPTIONS to the general rule.

Rules are broken legally through the

- granting of special privileges & exceptions and permissions:
- permits
- licenses
- exclusivity of priveleges given to particular groups

100% Responsibility for Results

Everyone is 100% responsible for the results of their actions.

The law favours nobody.

Limited Liability

People as directors of companies can legally divorce themselves
from responsibility through legal mechanisms such as corporations
Companies furthermonre can legally limit their liabilities.

Parties may be pardoned for breaking the law.

One owns 100% of what one Creates

You sow and you legally keep 100% of what you reap as the result of your own efforts are understood to be yours. You have full rights to all the products of your labor and creativity.

One never owns 100% of one's efforts

While you may reap some of what you sow, you do not benefit from
100% of your efforts as there is typically a legal tax or levie in place.

Laws Never Change

Laws CONSTANTLY CHANGE with new laws and new exceptions to the rules as new conditions that arise have to be addressed. Law is determined by the law makers to fit their agendas, their interpretation of how things should be.

Such a narrow view point is prone to corruption and understandably becomes self serving as history has proven - not to condone or to excuse that behaviour but to realize that if you are coming from a paridigm of scarcity and fear - it is in our nature to take care of ones own interests first.

Everything has its own intrinsic qualities that never change - "A rose is a rose is a rose." Gertrude Stein Everything is never as it appears or constantly changes with interpretation

Law is open to interpretation due
to the notwithstanding concept that the author of the law reserves the right of final interpretation.

Anything in the fiction of law can be anything else, that is be anything the author defines it to be can be one thing one day and another thing the next.

Those who control the rewriting of 'his story' only use it to justify an end.

Ignorance of the law is No Excuse. Everybody knows the law as it a byproduct of their experience in the natural world where the principles are few and never change. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. this is a carry over from common law or universal law from which most codified law is derived.No one knows the law, as the definitions and applications always change making it virtually impossible to keep up with all changes in the law.
You have ownership of everything you create You have no ownership over anything you create as everything you create is done in the name of an artificial entity which you do not own.

The natural world is a world of substance.

Real things are exchanged for real things. They have value in themselves, A 100% gold coin is a gold coin.

The legal world is one of fiction.

In the legal world something legally is made to represent something else even though it isn't true in the natural world. In some cases words have the opposite meaning of words in the vernacular. The legal world is purely fictional and has no relation to the Natural World.

Anything in the legal world has no substance as the legal world only exists by its definitions. Paper is made to become legal tender only because the State says it is so but paper has no intrinsic value in itself as a gold coin would. As one old gent said, "Don't believe what you see in the papers" - truer words could never be said.

What is morally right rules. What is legally right rules. Morality is not a issue. What is written down as true is absolute.
A living man exists in the Natural World, that is self evident. To think outside of the box is not to be in it. A living man, as a living cat does not exist in the man made (artificial) world of laws and definitions. No matter how hard you may try a cat does not recognize a legal box.
The only way a man can exist in the articial world is if he acts or identifies himself with the fiction ( straw man)
Universal laws override man made laws Through lack of awareness we unwittingly subjectgate ourselves contractually into the fictional domain. (Give all the power away that we have in the natural domain)
Non judical law is more powerful than
judicial law.
Non-judical law or actions can only be voided by the creator
Man made laws can always be voided by anyone.
Judgement of Disputes is by ones equals. Judgement of Disputes is by a superior authority

We are the Product of Our Conditioning:

If you are having some difficulty grasping this concept of the strawman and why it important I really empathize with you. To separate fiction from reality is a difficult task as we have been conditioned by our environment to view our man made fictional world in a way that appears real. In the process we lose our perspective on reality as it exists in the only world that is real - the natural world.

For instance take the example of a cat who crosses the
street in the middle of a block. If he gets run over that is a consequence of laws in the natural world.

If I cross the street in the middle of the block successly I could get charged for J-walking. If the cat crosses successfully the law doesn't apply as it is an artificial creation that has no application in the natural world. The cat as a creature of nature does not recognize the artificial rules of man.


Not only do we lose our perspective on the natural world as we attempt to operate our lives through imaginary rules that are made up, we also become frustrated in our day to day activity and in our lives because they simply do not work.

The reason is simply because, they are incongruent with the universal laws in the natural world. In the universe of cause and effect, or Karma if you will, the rules of man as with the cat hold no credence.

Let look at the definition of "natural" in Blacks and you will realize that the natural world is the direct opposite of the legal world. One is real and one is pure fiction.


Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712,
defines 'Natural' as follows:

"Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."

So you can see all our laws are fictions!


The NUREMBERG TRIALS of 1945 to 1949 gave recognition
to the fact that there is a higher authority than the rules of man. We are not obligated to follow the rules of man if it does agree with our belief system.

The Geneva convention that resulted after the trails gave universal recognition by Nation States that they would abide to certain intrinsic human rights. In other words the Nation States that signed the agreement agreed that men as human beings have the intrinsic right to not be bound or can never be bound by man made laws.

YOU ARE A SLAVE NEO from "The Matrix"

To put it bluntly the government cannot legally own human beings according to their international agreements that is, if they were a signatory. Slavery in those States today is considered illegal but ownership of your stand-in is legal. That is significant - why? This is because everything you think you own is in the straw mans name!!!

So how is it then you a natural man who like the Cat has no obligations to government are obligated to pay things like taxes.

Before I address that first understand that Government at least in the United States was originally created as a republic that as an entity to serve the people. The people in this sense are its masters. This is in accordance to the natural order of things whereby government is intended to serve people. And as is clear in the Nuremburg Trials men from first principles are not obligated to obey the rules of man.

Let me be clear, this does not suggest that you do not have to pay taxes. If you legally obligated yourself to pay taxes even if you didn't realize that you did - you legally have to pay taxes. That is of course assuming that the law legally applies to you.

Taxes is completely voluntary, the government cannot tell you to do anything that is unless you unwittingly legally obligated yourself. Lets explore that avenue a little because this is where awareness kicks and where you really get to understand the significance of what this legal stand-in called the straw man really means to you.


It is through all the contracts you signed on government
paper that you made all your voluntary commitments. In
signing legal documents you in effect admitted that you
are the legal stand-in for the human being that is indicated
on the paper.

Therefor you obligated yourself to all the obligations the
government attached to definitions of the terms used on
that document.

For example in your haste to get a business permit, a marriage license, a drivers permit did you follow up on the definitions of terms in the various statues that are associated with those forms? When you signed your name on your signature card when you opened a bank account did you check the details terms of the contract and their definitions?

HUMAN RIGHTS - What Human Rights?
By the terms of the contracts mentioned in the preceding paragraph you have just overwritten any human rights you may of had.

Yes you have your human rights and they may even be recognized by your country through the Geneva Convention but these still may not apply.

In Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Elliot Trudeau was responsible for establishing rights for its citizens but was this recognizing the rights of a human being or was it the rights of a government created fictional entity? If Canada was a signatory for the Genava convention, why would this even be necessary?

Do you know which applies? It is self evident that
government cannot give you rights that it does not has any authority to give. Who is wagging who, the tail or the dog. The suggestion here is the State can only grant privileges
and rights to you only if it has authority over you that is only if you have already given your authority to it via the straw man. It then is at the descretion of the State to grant the 'Straw man' rights not withstanding the fact that it can take it back at any time. If you were a Canadian adult at the time you will recall that the province Quebec never did agree to the non-withstanding clause - now you know one possible reason why.

"You mean to tell me that my delusion is not
real" - Marshall McLuhan

As you are a human being the state has no authority over
you. If it asserts its authority over you it makes sense
that you can legally appeal to the world court for justice
if your country was a signatory of the Geneva Convention when the various States contractually agreed to respect our inherent human rights.

Or you can stand your ground and stand outside their state
jurisdiction recognizing a higher authority or can you? Not if you haven't divorced yourself from the strawman.


The constitution of a state may recognize certain things in its charter which defines its purpose and limitations. But there is one thing in law that you should be aware of it and that is specifics always over rule generalizations.

If one witness in court describes the thief as a woman with long black hair and the other as a slender man with long black hair with a scar on his left check - the second more detailed description will always overrule the first.

In this sense your contracts with the State are specifics between you as an individual and not blanket generalizations as is evident by a constitution or Bill of Rights. The specifics of the contract override everything else.

The message here is: be fully aware of the implications of all the contracts you have unwittingly become a party to.

If you really want 100% ownership of everything you created in the name of the straw man you have to take self responsibility and claim back what is rightfully yours. It is also in your best interest to nullify all the contracts that are not in your best interest.

In the realm natural world man by his actions and non actions
takes full responsibility for himself. In law what operates here is the concept of neglect - that which you do not claim automatically reverts to the State as you did not deem it important.

Unwittingly if you fail to take action you are legally a ward of the state and they have every right to do what they will with you. I write this not for my sake or your sake - we at this time are relatively well off but I fear for the sake of our children and their childrens children. Other parts of the world are not so fortunate.


The beauty of a contract is that if you have the capacity of entering into a contract you have the option of exiting out of a contract. For more info go to

Permission to repost granted with full
disclosure/credits. Les Raketti