Facebook page - Powerful Secrets of Law and Equity Revealed

[Baron Jeff.]

They deny being sovereign citizens (and seem to get a bit grouchy at people in the comments labelling them as such), but they are selling the usual snake oil about being able to stop paying taxes. Apparently, it's all to do with trusts.

They ramble on about how creating a trust means you don't have to pay tax or be subject to the laws of the land, how the Crown is a trust you must escape from to reclaim your freedom, that judges are fiduciary officers for the Crown trust and other such nonsense:

https://www.facebook.com/SecretsofLaw/

And their website:

https://www.successors.ca/?fbclid=IwAR2 ... HSsUW1LID0

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Okay. Obvious question. Why do they have a .ca website?

[eric]

Even though they are discussing UK law I suspect that the author is actually a Canadian. When the author wants to get snarky about sovereign citizens he refers to them as "OPCA litigants" and refers to Canlii, not something someone in the US/UK would normally do.

The other interesting thing about the .ca registration si when you really want to hide your personal identity through a double blind. Create your site through Tucows as the author of this one did, then ask for a .ca suffix. CIRA has to be shook down to hand out any details and then you have to shake down Tucows.

[AndyK]

FWIW; page reported to Facebook as a scam promoting illegal activity.

[notorial dissent]

They deny being sovereign citizens (and seem to get a bit grouchy at people in the comments labelling them as such), but they are selling the usual snake oil about being able to stop paying taxes. Apparently, it's all to do with trusts.

They ramble on about how creating a trust means you don't have to pay tax or be subject to the laws of the land, how the Crown is a trust you must escape from to reclaim your freedom, that judges are fiduciary officers for the Crown trust and other such nonsense:

https://www.facebook.com/SecretsofLaw/

And their website:

https://www.successors.ca/?fbclid=IwAR2 ... HSsUW1LID0

Well, to give the devil, or in this case the idjits, his due, they really aren't sovcits in the classical "you're not the boss of me" sense, this group's whole existence depends on the statutes and laws, and their cloud cuckoo mis-interpreting/reading/understanding of what those statutes and laws mean, so I suspect they would get tetchy at being called sovcits. If anything, they really are an OPCA variant. They think that if they can mis-interpret the law sufficiently they can get what they want. Doesn't make them any the less idjits, with really boring websites and a disjointed largely incoherent Faceplant page.

[longdog]

I've been trying to get an explanation from them as to how these secrets of property, equity and trust law are A) secrets and B) relevant to anybody not directly involved in a case involving property, equity or trust law... So far without success.

As best as I can work out it seems to be explained as "Some pats of the law are very technical and very hard to understand in an abstract sense without applying those technical parts of the law to a specific set of circumstances to see if they are relevant and if so how. I don't understand any of this crap and therefore I don't have to pay my bills".

They might as well be trying to understand road traffic law by looking at The Firearms Act. You need a licence for a firearm other than an air weapon where firearm is defined as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of discharging a projectile. My car doesn't have a barrel and can't discharge a projectile therefore I don't need a driving licence.

I really don't think even they have a clue how any of their nonsense if actually supposed to work. Just "Big words something, something, something free money!"

[Burnaby49]

I really don't think even they have a clue how any of their nonsense if actually supposed to work. Just "Big words something, something, something free money!"

Well that's it for Quatloos. You've revealed the final secret at the heart of the mystery of sovereign beliefs. We might as well pack it up. Thanks a fucking lot.

[longdog]

I really don't think even they have a clue how any of their nonsense if actually supposed to work. Just "Big words something, something, something free money!"

Well that's it for Quatloos. You've revealed the final secret at the heart of the mystery of sovereign beliefs. We might as well pack it up. Thanks a fucking lot.

Something something blinding light something something Road to Damascus

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Blah blah blah, secret plans...

https://youtu.be/ptLag1_GQzQ

[Juisarian]

I've yadda yadda'd equity trust fraud remedies.

[notorial dissent]

Majik wurdz and frases they don't even understand.

[The Observer]

This has been revealed before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

[longdog]

And so... As if by magic... All of my comments asking for any evidence that any of their crap was in any way relevant to anything are deleted.

What a shock.

[grixit]

There are variants of this that say that such trusts already exist, and have existed since colonial times. It's just necessary to claim membership in it.

One version says that the older "preamble citizens", as opposed to the newer "13th amendment citizens", are covered by a blanket trust.

Another refers to a passage somewhere in th law where the phrase "a certain farm" appears. That's supposed to be code for the trust.

Still another says that the term "label" refers to amending a will, and that the 1040 form is some kind of bequest. When the instructions say to fill out and attach the label, it's a way of tricking you into "willing" your property to the government, instead of inheriting it back to yourself via the trust. So don't fill out the label and you can keep everything.

I haven't seen any of these in a while, i wonder if they're due to coming back. Say what you like about the sovcits, they really believe in recycling.

[morrand]

For anyone interested in seeing this...thing...at work, there is currently a live demonstration taking place in the Word Salad Bar.

I conclude this is so because, among many other things, one of the participants there said:

...at that time after there has been a jurisdiction change... (1215, 1535, 1688, 1925 &c) each of these years a new jurisdiction and new common law was established.

A Google search on "1215 1535 1688 1925 jurisdiction" leads right back to successors.ca:

To come from this with the inner-standing that law is about land, and the estates created therefrom, should one then consider to stop learning about how to navigate laws which have to do with the idea of the legal person, as this is proof of equity, and instead focus on what are the laws of the land, and how did they come to be?

(Hint: years 1066, 1086, 1215, 1279, 1535, 1688, 1870's, 1925...) These have to do with either a jurisdiction change or change in law that conveys land and/or property called estates).

(My emphasis)

The list of years and the explanation of their supposed significance, as well as the tortured syntax and the general focus on law and equity, all point to a common source, if not a direct connection.

[Gregg]

"If you read Quatloos long enough, the delusions of all the Frickentards will float by."
- Quatloosian proverb

[Tevildo]

(Hint: years 1066, 1086, 1215, 1279, 1535, 1688, 1870's, 1925...) These have to do with either a jurisdiction change or change in law that conveys land and/or property called estates).

I now have to wonder what they're referring to - it's not made clear on the website. Some are obvious, but not all of them:

• 1066 - Battle of Hastings. [No points for getting that one]
• 1086 - Domesday Book.
• 1215 - Magna Carta. [No points here, either].
• 1279 - Statutes of Mortmain. Important, but not as important as the Statute of Westminster (1275) or De donis (1285) or Quia emptores (1290).
• 1535 - Henry VIII was up to a great deal around then, but there isn't anything that he did specifically in 1535 that seems to be relevant. Perhaps the Statute of Uses (1536)?
• 1688 - Presumably the Glorious Revolution, but the Bill of Rights is 1689.
• 1870's - Presumably the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873.
• 1925 - Law of Property Act 1925.

If any clarification is available, I'd be interested to know what it is.

[morrand]

I now have to wonder what they're referring to - it's not made clear on the website. Some are obvious, but not all of them:

• 1066 - Battle of Hastings. [No points for getting that one]
• 1086 - Domesday Book.
• 1215 - Magna Carta. [No points here, either].
• 1279 - Statutes of Mortmain. Important, but not as important as the Statute of Westminster (1275) or De donis (1285) or Quia emptores (1290).
• 1535 - Henry VIII was up to a great deal around then, but there isn't anything that he did specifically in 1535 that seems to be relevant. Perhaps the Statute of Uses (1536)?
• .....

If any clarification is available, I'd be interested to know what it is.

As best as I can tell, you are correct on all counts, except maybe for the Domesday Book. That doesn't get mentioned that I can see, but it's a good guess in any event.

There is a series called "The Secret" on their Notice Board that doesn't exactly clarify things, but it is at least passably coherent. The Statute of Uses apparently plays an oversize role in their mythology (it is discussed in parts 1d through 1f of the series) but throughout they date it 1535. Unfortunately, it looks like you have to come up with the £20/$25 to buy the book if you want to learn about anything after 1535, so I can't verify those (though the Bill of Rights gets a namecheck at least, so that's another likely guess).

[Comrade Sharik]

Anybody who, when discussing the transition from Saxon to Norman rule in 1066, states that -

One could not force anyone to agree unless an express contract was evident and/or proof of an agreement was unarguably noticed.

has no understanding of medieval history, and that's putting it mildly.

[HardyW]

Anybody who, when discussing the transition from Saxon to Norman rule in 1066, states that -

One could not force anyone to agree unless an express contract was evident and/or proof of an agreement was unarguably noticed.

has no understanding of medieval history, and that's putting it mildly.

Or equally, no understanding of medieval "politics", or perhaps "society". It is the same phenomenon as discussing Magna Carta and equating "the barons" with "the common people".

I suppose it might be the case that an "agreement" between the likes of barons, bishops, squires etc would be written down and argued civilly, but for the average peasant or serf any of the above classes of people were lords and more or less had to be obeyed.