The "Strawman" double/split person concept is used to attempt to avoid legal obligations through "the notice of treating a named individual as an "estate" that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation". ACG's sought to distinguish himself as a "individual human being" from his legal "person". One part of his split person may have signed the mortgage, but the other part is not bound. ACG swore the following in an affidavit:
1. I am a man and an individual human being with standing within the territory commonly known as Canada.ADG referred to his birth certificate and statement of live birth in connection with the last point.
2. I am exercising my right NOT to take recognition as a person before the law.
3. I am not a person or any class of person.
4. I am the Beneficiary and Grantor of the account referred to as the juristic person [ADG].
In addition to the "Strawman" arguments, ADG also claimed that what was loaned to him by the mortgagee was nothing more than "book-entry credit created out of thin air", which constituted fraud. The Court Master hearing this case did some research on the term "book-entry credit" and found that it had been discussed in a number of Australian court decisions. The source of the "book-entry credit" argument appeared to be a book called "How to Screw 'Your' Bank". The Master rejected this argument.
After granting the order sought by the mortgagee, the Master concluded her reasons with the following:
Beyond that, it would be a pity if ADG lost his home because he exercised poor discretion in his search for reliable sources of legal information. There are better alternatives than obsolete legal dictionaries, discounted texts like How to Screw ‘Your’ Bank, and Youtube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards. The decision is, of course, up to ADG, however, he should think carefully before he makes statements such as:
I can find no law that authorizes book-entry credit and thus must conclude it is fraudulent criminal activity which I cannot take part in. ...
He cannot expect the courts to view him as a ‘fair dealer’. When he makes such statements the Court may be inclined to accept the alternative that ADG’s appearance in court is for an improper and ulterior purpose. If so, ADG can expect negative consequences.
Read the decision at: Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier.