Political self-sabotage: the freeman on the land movement has a conflict of interest with Occupy London

In every political movement there are those who want power at all costs, those who want it to change society in their preferred direction and those who do not want it at all. The first and the last constituencies are the troublemakers for political parties. The first are nowadays best exemplified by Tony Blair and his crew, for whom power was a must-have item for the CVs; that’s the reason why they even engaged in illegal wars. British power is one thing but a pocket of American influence was much more precious to them. In the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg is very clearly in the Blairite mold. Rather than hold the thieving Tory bastard to account in a minority administration he chose to get into bed with them in Downing Street. The thieving Tory bastards have got the easiest ride in this analysis because they have always been clear that they want to be in charge. John Major might be perceived as being the nicest Prime Minister they ever had but even his autobiography makes it clear that right from the start, he wanted to be Chancellor of Exchequer. They have no moral or cultural difficulty with declaring their personal ambitions.

The people who genuinely want power to change society in their preferred direction are far more in number than one might imagine. The Labour Party and the Green Party is ram packed with them. They populate the Opposition benches. When in power, the Labour whips worked harder than their counterparts in the thieving Tory bastards ever had to. Keeping those old socialists in line was no easy matter, although loyalty to the tribe is most keenly felt inside the Labour Party. Witness Robin Cook’s demise; his resignation broke his heart (Ben Stack, where he died, is a much overlooked hill walkers’ wonder – I have climbed it twice and both times I thought I might have a heart attack too.)

The people join political movements only to undermine them are the worst of all. In times past their needs were looked after by churches or social clubs. These days, with our fragmented societal structure, they are out on their own limbs. They look around for something to become involved in and consume the time of the people who have created the organisation they have joined. For the thieving Tory bastards, these people are called Euro-Sceptics. Despite being the party of big business, the Euro-Sceptics oppose the concept of a single market even though it is a capitalists’ wet dream. They hark back to a time that no longer exists, when Britannia had an empire it could trade with and exploit. They continually drag their party into the mire and have cost it election victories. The Labour Party has self-saboteurs too, though they have been on the wane in recent years. The Green Party has people who want “Green Policies” but live the most unGreen lifestyle possible and thereby essentially just want someone else to sort out their personal problems.

Occupy London should not be blamed for having their fair share of these people. I’ve previously blogged about the freeman on the land movement. These people are complete time-wasters. They pick up on the smallest detail, usually small to the vanishing point, and twist it out of recognition having blinded themselves to all the other detail in the same context. Last night they had the audacity to question whether John Cooper QC had a conflict of interest because he is a freeman of the City of London! His having advised us from day one for free, his persistent good results on that front, his extensive work for human rights and in criminal defence means nothing to them. Lots of people have joined livery companies without being enslaved to them.

Yet again, these followers of the freeman on the land movement have wasted the time and spoilt the goodwill of those who would help them. They actively seek conflict. They sit around in the evening smoking drugs and spoiling the positive contributions of those who have actually created the Occupation. They know that general assembly after general assembly has banned alcohol and drugs on site but they don’t care about the general assembly. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.

There will be a time when the Occupation decides to leave the camp at St Paul’s Cathedral. Whilst its work may not be complete, those of us who have worked hard to make it the success that it has been will prove to the nay-sayers and the undecided public that this wasn’t a Boy Scout’s camping trip but a serious way of kick starting a serious debate. Certainly the Tobin tax was not properly discussed in these recessionary years until we came along. We will leave with dignity, packing up our tents and tidying up after ourselves. The people of the freeman on the land movement will scream treason but in fact they have contributed nothing to the debate, nothing to the hard work of maintaining the occupation and are in fact deluded freeloaders whose only skill is in damaging the progressive movement that they have pretended to join.

81 responses to “Political self-sabotage: the freeman on the land movement has a conflict of interest with Occupy London

  1. Guys, PLEASE reserach the Freeman stuff before you diss them. When you get under the skin of it, you will learn some astonishing stuff. It goes much deeper than you could possibly imagine – give it a fair go.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      Guys? Who do you think you are talking to? There’s only me, Scrapper Duncan, here. This is a single author blog.

      I have researched the Freeman on the Land movement and have concluded that it is, to use a polite term, self-obsessed bollocks. Having reached that conclusion I looked to who perpetrated it and found them to be antisocial drug takers who contribute nothing to constructive political dialogue or action. Thus my posts on the topic.

      Ask yourself this: which political actions in recent years were led by these people? None. Here’s an easier question: what lasting contribution have them made to progressive politics? None. Finally, what does their philosophy revolve around? Themselves. Speaks volumes, doesn’t it? What is their policy on health care? None. What is their policy on the NHS? None. The list goes on. They are the political equivalent of Santa Claus. Only fit for storytelling to children on a dark midwinter evening but it turns out that all the livery was rebranded by a major corporation (Coke Cola) decades ago and no-one cared enough to protest.

      • What an idiot you are scrapper. All a load of bull when the evidence is in our face . yeah he might talk some shit but fuck me have you seen what you’ve written , the biggest load of bull shit I have ever come aacross. Your lucky am on my mobile and hampered typing because I could slaughter your bullshit . This blog is all about discrediting and telling porkies along the way . Are you that fucking stupid . You will be seen as far fetched as John is lol apart from you was never onto anything real in the firstcplace . I’m under no illusion and I dont find it hard to separate fact from bull shit . Am only 26 and can clearly see you class everything as total bull which is probably why all you write is total bull. Wake up silly angry man look at the FACTS

  2. So there are bunch of ‘Freemen’ smoking and doing drugs at the Occupy site? I bet there are a plenty of others doing the same thing, and there are plenty of Freemen out there who don’t smoke or do drugs, so that seems a pretty pointless thing to mention. I don’t think Freemen are all that interested in politics, it’s politics that are causing all the problems in the world, they’re usually a bunch of individuals looking for another way around all the man made legislation that blights our lives. There are no policies, except to exist peacefully and to cause no harm or loss to ones fellow man. You must be pretty blinkered if you cannot see that freedoms are being eroded bu politics and policies and a lot of people are just looking for ways around that.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      You need policies to make a modern society work. To your way of thinking, it is goodbye NHS and every other large scale structure that requires careful and consistent management. Drug taking has been persistently banned by Occupy London’s General Assemblies, so I think it is worth mentioning that these people don’t give a hoot about the aims and objectives of the movement they have attempted to cuckoo.

  3. Given your legal training you should have no problem at all answering these few points; The Person refers to both a flesh and blood human and the Legal construct/fiction. This construct is often refered to as The Straw man. Correct?
    The State itself is/has a Corporate persona?
    The Corporate State claims a possesory interasts in all the Nation states assets?
    The fame work which legitimises this is a political/legal one?

  4. You have probably seen this fairly thorough debunkment Scrapper?


    Oh if it were as easy as wishing the horrid system wasn’t there, and just believing in a different one would make that exist.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      Quite. Doubtless Dominic Lohan and his brethren will now immediately edit that page. For the record, this is what it says now, so far as I am able to render it in the comments form. Thanks for your input IanB!

      Freeman on the land
      It’s not even
      a good idea

      Icon pseudolaw.svg
      I have a theory,
      which is mine

      British Constitution Group
      Citizen’s Rule Book
      Corporate personhood
      Crime woo
      Federal Reserve
      Obama citizenship denial
      Peter Hendrickson
      Posse Comitatus (organization)
      Provisional Imperial Government
      Sovereign citizen
      Strawman theory
      Tax protester

      v – t – e

      Freeman on the land or freeman is a form of pseudolegal woo existing in various English-speaking countries. Freemen believe that they can opt out of being governed and that legislative acts only apply with consent, as they are a form of contract. They believe they are only bound by their own bizarre version of common law. They will often assert that the law doesn’t apply as they do not consent and do not agree to contract with the state, even going so far as to believe they have a lawful right to refuse being arrested if they do not consent. Essentially, they’re hilarious and somewhat less threatening sovereign citizens.

      Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of the jurisdiction of the government via a concept known as “lawful rebellion”: that all statute law is contractual and therefore only applicable if an individual consents to it. They believe the only “true” law is their own definition of common law. Other aspects include insisting that the government is a corporation, an obsession with maritime law, and calling themselves such things as ‘John of the family Smith.’

      No freeman arguments have ever been recognised in court; some have even explicitly ruled that the term “freeman on the land” has no legal significance.[1] This won’t stop freemen from claiming they work.

      1 How it works (or not)
      2 History
      3 Common law
      4 Legal Person or Straw man
      5 Contracts and statutes
      6 Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right
      7 Lawful rebellion and the Magna Carta
      8 Admiralty law and courts
      9 Economics and finance
      10 Government
      11 Birth certificates
      12 Freeman failures
      13 See also
      14 External links
      15 Sources
      16 Footnotes

      [edit] How it works (or not)

      A lot of freeman ideas revolve around bizarre interpretations of entries in Black’s Law Dictionary (a favourite reference for freemen), and inventing or seeing distinctions where there are none to support their beliefs (such as common vs. statute law, policeman vs police officer, understand vs stand-under, words in CAPITALS having a different legal meaning to those in lower-case, etc.). There is a lot of pareidolia with words and concepts used to derive and justify ideas in freeman theory.

      Freemen are typically members of the green ink brigade and often indulge in various other conspiracy theories, as well as strong anti-government and anti-corporate sentiments. Freeman ideas are often used to try to escape tax and debt repayment by arguing that they are not required to pay tax, or even to argue that borrowed money was theirs to start with.[2] Freeman ideas are so far out that even arch-crackpot Alex Jones thinks it’s quackery (seriously, see for yourself)[3] and agrees that using them will probably get you sent to jail.
      [edit] History

      “Freeman on the land” ideas inherit several aspects from the older tax protester and sovereign citizen movements in the US such as Posse Comitatus in the 70s and 80s and the Montana Freemen in the 90s. Ideas such as their concepts of admiralty law, common law, their obsession with capitalisation of words and various theories on finance can trace their origins back to almost identical theories from these movements. The freeman movement itself appears to have originated in Canada with ‘Mary Elizabeth: Croft’ (sic) and her 2005 book How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash-confiscatory agency known to man … a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are[4]. This then evolved in to a movement in Canada with practitioners such as Robert Menard (who may have actually coined the phrase “Freeman on the land”) before transferring over to the UK with people such as John Harris, Brian Gerrish, the Anti-terrorist and Raymond St Clair. The phrase “Freeman on the land” itself seems to have originated sometime around mid 2008.[5]
      [edit] Common law

      Freemen have something of an obsession with common law, which typically refers to what is known as case law.
      “ As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security [rights] of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgements and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. ”

      —Black’s law dictionary 6th edition 1991

      Freemen use this entry to justify a different definition, one which is heavily reliant on the concept of natural law. They see common law as applicable to everyone or, as they would claim, applicable to men and women, flesh and blood human beings, but statutory law as dependent on choice, an offer of contract, only applicable to their person and not enforceable except by consent. Some definitions of the freeman interpretation of common law are:
      “ “you do not cause harm or loss to another, while you never breach the peace, and never employ any mischief in your promises & agreements ”

      —Veronica: of the chapman family” [6]
      “ never harm or causes loss ”

      —John Harris
      “ There are only three ways to break the law. Harm another human being, damage someone else’s property, use fraud or mischief in your contracts ”

      —Robert Menard [7]

      What Freemen don’t seem to understand is that all law in England is ultimately under the jurisdiction of Parliament which can revoke, rewrite, amend or consolidate case law/real common law whenever it sees fit. This is the principle known as Parliamentary sovereignty, where parliament is recognised as the supreme legal authority and being able therefore to pass or repeal any law it wishes, with the only restriction being that it cannot bind future parliaments. Parliamentary sovereignty is recognised by the courts as a fundamental feature of the common law in England and Wales, for example in Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] and Jackson v Attorney General [2005].

      Ultimately, the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it. You can argue that the authorities have no jurisdiction over you, and you can choose not to recognise their authority, but as long as the authorities have force to back up their rules they can enforce sanctions against you. Freemen would argue that this would be unlawful imprisonment – but at the end of the day you’d still be in jail.
      [edit] Legal Person or Straw man
      See the main article on this topic: Strawman theory

      Freemen believe that an individual has two personas. One of them is a physical, tangible human being, and the other is their legal person, personality or strawman. A legal fiction which is created when a birth certificate is filed with what would normally be considered someone’s name (eg; JOHN SMITH), capitalization being a particular obsession. Freemen believe that all legal actions, restrictions and statutes can only be applicable to their legal personality, and that by separating themselves from their legal person, they can free themselves of having to abide by statute laws they don’t like (or acts, as they would insist they are not laws).[8] This is typically done by using a slightly different spelling of their name, usually ‘John of the family Smith’ (variations include ‘John of Smith’ or even ‘John;Smith’) and/or entering in to what is referred to as Lawful Rebellion, or by filing a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. They also believe that use of titles such as Mr/Mrs refer to their legal fiction as opposed to themselves and will therefore refuse to be identified using them (as this may create joinder). Freemen believe their birth certificate is their legal person, and will attempt to present it in court when said person is called for, rather than identifying themselves as that person.

      Because of their obsession with admiralty law and all things maritime, freemen believe that their legal person is required to operate in commerce, or the sea of commerce. It is therefore defined as a vessel or ship in the legal realm, floating on the sea of commerce. Evidence of this comes in the form of the resemblance between birth and berth, use of the term birth canal and the fact that courtrooms have docks. All legal action between your person and others is therefore conducted under admiralty law, mercantile law or commercial law, sometimes referred to as the law of the sea.
      [edit] Contracts and statutes

      Because of their conception of common law as the only true law, freemen believe that any laws made by the government are not ‘laws’, but are instead invitations to contract, or ‘acts’, giving rise to the freeman maxim of ‘Acts nor laws’. They do not believe that statute law applies without an individual’s consent, and that we are just conditioned and deceived by the authorities to believe that they do. Freemen claim that statutes can have the force of law as a binding contract under the correct conditions.

      Freemen believe that the government has to establish what they refer to as joinder which means they have to get you to voluntarily establish your identity as your legal person. When they ask you whether you are ‘John Smith’ and you confirm that you are then you are establishing joinder. You have then connected your physical and human persons. The next step is to obtain consent. Statutes are seen as invitations to enter a contract, which are only legally enforceable if one enters into the contract consensually. If one does not enter in to a contract then statute laws are not applicable. Freemen believe that the government is therefore constantly trying to trick people into entering into a contract with them. They often return bills, notices, summons and so on with the message “No contract – return to sender”.

      Central to this idea is the concept of legalese, referred to as the language of the law society. Freemen invent several distinctions to make reality fit their interpretation. Notices (for example those which are issued by courts, the police or some government agencies) are supposedly written in legalese. Legalese is designed to look like English by using English words but is, in fact not English. Dun dun dun. For instance, they state that the word ‘must’, in legalese, is synonymous with ‘may’ (and vice-versa). ‘Summons’ means ‘invitation’, ‘demand’ means ‘offer’ and ‘understand’ (as in ‘do you understand?’) means ‘stand under’, as in ‘do you stand under these words’, i.e., accept the terms of our contract.[8] All these terms are sneaky ways of getting you to contract with the government without you realising. No source is provided for this use of language, but it is a convenient way of getting reality to fit a delusion. After all, if one were to start claiming that somebody says one thing but actually mean something completely different, then one can start to claim almost anything.

      See here for an example of how they redefine a leaflet about the UK TV licence [1].
      [edit] Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right

      A ‘Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right’ is a made up legal document freemen use in an attempt to declare sovereignty. They will sign such a document, sometimes with a notary, and then send it to the Queen and sometimes various other figures such as the prime minister and police chiefs. It usually consists of a series of lines beginning ‘Whereas it is my understanding’ followed by an assertion which is usually untrue or completely illogical. Various parts will state their bizarre interpretation of the law and their understanding that they do not consent to it. This is then followed by what is known as a ‘Fee schedule’ or ‘Penalty schedules’ which lists a series of acts and associated penalties the freeman will attempt to levy against the government for perceived transgressions. For instance, if the state incarcerates a freeman against their will then will attempt to charge the state a fee for this action; see here for an example of one. They typically begin as follows
      “ I, Veronica: of the Chapman family, hereinafter known as Veronica: Chapman, a flesh and blood human being in possession of a sovereign and individual spirit, a living soul, do hereby make Oath and state the following is My Truth and My Law:

      Whereas it is my understanding that in terms of earthly existence there is no species more supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any fair, just and reasonable context, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must in practice derive from the aforesaid axioms, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as ‘people’, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and

      Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and

      Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and

      Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and

      Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and

      Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common Law jurisdiction, and

      Whereas I Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-land, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that all authority possessed by elected representatives must inherently derive from those who elect said representation, and Whereas it is my understanding that if I have the right to empower representation by casting a vote then I am empowered to represent myself, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that the right of empowerment does not derive from any government otherwise it would be possible for a government to revoke it, and

      Whereas it is my understanding that if the right to empower representation were revoked then no representation would thereafter be possible, and

      Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in the United Kingdom is a representative one, and …

      [edit] Lawful rebellion and the Magna Carta

      Lawful rebellion is another concept in British freeman theory holding that one can lawfully choose to cease abiding the laws, rules and statutes of a country by simply opting out of society. Lawful rebellion is often an alternative to the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right method, although they are sometimes used together. Freemen believe that they can withdraw their consent to be governed and can sacrifice ones legal person by entering into lawful rebellion and they will no longer be bound or affected by any legislative statutes. This claim stems from clause 61 of the Magna Carta:
      “ Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted, to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another. ”

      —Magna Carta 1215

      Clause 61 of the Magna Carta is a historically and constitutionally significant clause. It gave 25 barons the right to meet and overrule the will of the king and seize his assets, essentially usurping his authority, if this was considered necessary. This was one of the first times that there had been any kind of restriction on a king’s power from below. It could be argued as being one of the first checks and balances and the first step toward the move for constitutional government. Clause 61 was only in effect for 3 months as King John later renounced it and Pope Innocent III released King John from his oath to obey it. This led to a civil war between the king and his barons known as the 1st Baron’s War.

      Freemen claim that clause 61 allows them to cease obeying the state. This sometimes involves sending an affidavit direct to the Queen declaring ones intent to become a freeman and removing their consent to be governed. Some freemen believe that the Queen represents the highest authority in the land as the sovereign but that she derives her authority from we the people. This then makes them sovereign in such that there is no higher authority then themselves. The actual text of Magna Carta’s clause 61 explicitly refers to the King and the Barons (25 of them being required to invoke the clause), nowhere is there any mention of the people free or otherwise (nor would there be given the feudal system in place at the time). The phrase ‘Lawful Rebellion’ doesn’t appear anywhere in it, being an invention of freeman mythology.

      Freemen claim that Magna Carta cannot be repealed but this simply is not true. Aside from the fact it was almost instantly repealed, it was itself replaced by the Magna Carta of 1297 passed by the later Edward I in return for new taxes. It is this 1297 version (without any clause 61 or anything resembling it) which is now in force although all but three sections of it have in turn been repealed. Admittedly it took until 1829 until a single clause was repealed but by 1969 all but sections 1 (freedom of the church), 9 (freedom of the city of London) and 29 (right to due process) had been repealed or superseded. This should be considered a good thing as Magna Carta by today’s standards cannot be considered to be the most progressive of documents. Clause 54 (1215) for instance prevented women from giving evidence “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone except her husband”.
      [edit] Admiralty law and courts

      Freemen see a distinction between what they call common law and statute law, which they refer to as admiralty law or ‘law of the sea’, sometimes also known as maritime law or the universal commercial code. Through a stunning misunderstanding of etymology, they see admiralty law as being the law of commerce, the law of ownerShip, citizenSHIP, and indeed anything else ending in ship. They see evidence of this in various nautical sounding terms used in court, such as dock, birth (berth) certificate, -ship suffixes, and any other fancy word with a vaguely naval sound. Freemen will take this further by using further nautical terms, referring to the court as a ship, its occupants as passengers and claming that anyone leaving are men overboard. Consequently their legal arguments tend to have a hilarious nautical theme.

      Freemen see courts as being a place of business intended to make profit for the government corporation. They sometimes refer to these courts de facto courts. When they receive a summons to appear as court they insist that this is not summons but is in fact an invitation to their place of business to discuss the matter at hand. When one initially enters a court they are operating under admiralty law rather than their version of common law. American Freemen on the land will sometimes try to argue that if the flag in the court has a gold fringe, this signifies that it is an Admiralty court. British courts tend not to have flags of any type, so the claim has largely failed to cross the Atlantic. Believing they are operating under admiralty law, freemen will try claim common law jurisdiction by stating ‘do you have a claim against me, which supposedly removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, forcing the court to proceed according to their version of common law. Any cooperation with the court is seen as accepting their terms of contract, and freemen will therefore refuse to do anything asked of them. When asked to stand or approach the bench, they will often refuse to do so, or only do so as long as ‘their inalienable god given rights remain intact’, in order to prevent them from entering a contract. Freemen will also attempt to ‘put the judge on their oath’ to force them to to act in accordance with common law, which entails asking to see evidence of this oath. Judges typically give short shrift to this kind of request, and either adjourn the hearing or threaten to accuse the Freeman of contempt of court. The freemen might then ask whether the judge means civil or criminal contempt; this is because freemen believe that civil contempt would come under admiralty law, and therefore require a consensual contract, and criminal contempt would require a victim. When Judges leave the courtroom, Freemen will attempt to claim common law authority and then attempt to dismiss the charges themselves, often with a cry of “ship abandoned” or “man overboard”.[9][10]

      Freemen believe that that a victim must exist for a common law crime to have been committed. One of their attempts at defence will be to demand to see evidence of a victim. They may also complain that the trial is unfair because the judge and prosecution are on the same team, both being employed by the state. If a Freeman has had their property confiscated, they will request that it be returned to them. None of these defences ever get them anywhere but they persist in using them anyway. Silly buggers.

      Freemen will never accept legal representation, as to do so might entail contracting with the state. They also believe that professional lawyers and solicitors owe a duty to the crown before them due to their oath, and therefore cannot represent them effectively. Professional lawyers are also all part of the evil legal system and therefore not to be trusted.

      Other legal woo attempted by Freemen include serving their own papers on courts and the police and even attempting to send invoices (or, as they refer to them, fee schedules) to courts and the police.

      Court appearances are by far the most hysterical part of the freeman delusion as various youtube videos will attest. Watching freemen trying to apply their delusions to reality is like watching a video of a slow motion train wreck on top of which someone has dubbed some delusional gibberish. The fact that freemen put these videos—filmed illegally in the UK—on Youtube at all suggests cognitive dissonance since they typically make the protagonist look very foolish. Techniques used to overcome the manifest failure of freeman logic in court include editing out key moments in favour of voiceovers and mistaking adjournments for acquittals.
      [edit] Economics and finance

      Freemen have some bizarre ideas dating back to the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666. They claim that this act declared all English citizens dead and lost beyond the seas unless they objected within seven years of their birth, after which they would be declared dead without reasonable doubt. The state would then claim all the property of its citizens in trust. The full text of the act can be read here courtesy of the national archives. It’s very short and reads as follows;
      “ Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.

      Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners. ”

      —Cestui Que Vie Act, 1666

      The true intent of this act is obvious: it states that anyone lost at sea for more than seven years will be declared legally dead. How anyone can arrive at a different conclusion is bizarre.

      Freemen believe that the UK and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and therefore is under admiralty law. Since the abolition of the gold standard in 1917, UK currency is now backed not by gold but rather by the people, or rather the legal fiction of their persons. They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation.
      [edit] Government

      Freemen are typically strongly anti-government and believe that the government is a corporation (number uc2279443). The proof is that the government and various parts of it are listed on the website of credit agency ‘Dunn and Bradstreets’ as having a credit record. Any other evidence that runs contrary to this view is commonly viewed as wrong, lies, deception, etc… Only evidence which supports this view is accepted as correct, in a similar way to how conspiracy theorists often treat evidence that runs contradictory to their viewpoints.

      In reality any entity be that corporation, government, person/human, charity or whatever that borrows money or works on credit will need a credit record so that creditors can assess the risk of lending. Credit agencies are also not the arbiters of what is and isn’t a corporation. I could set up a credit rating organisation tomorrow and say that such and such is a corporation, but it wouldn’t make it so. The idiosyncrasies of how a credit rating organisation’s website list entities should not be taken as proof of outrageous claims.

      Freemen also claim that when we vote we are in fact electing directors of a company for profit, that MPs are directors and the voters are employees of the corporation. Although the UK government (and nearly all western governments) has in fact been running at a deficit pretty much constantly since the war. Who is supposed to get the profit from this corporation is unclear. MPs get a fixed standard salary which is way below an equivalent job in the private sector.
      [edit] Birth certificates

      There are three main beliefs about birth certificates in freemen mythology

      The government uses them to create your strawman and legal person to which all your legal responsibilities, debts and liabilities belong.[8]
      As a form of registration they transfer ownership of an individual to the state. This is what allows the state to seize your children if you don’t play by their rules.[8]
      They are financial instruments or birth tracking bonds (aka live birth bonds) that are sold by the government and then traded on the sea of international commerce, using you as security.

      According to freeman woo since the abolition of the gold standard the government uses its own citizenry and their birth certificate bonds to secure the value of its fiat currency. It’s claimed that the value of an individuals bond may reach into the millions. This can supposedly be proved by entering the numbers on ones birth certificate in to various stock tracking sites to show the current value of ones bond on the market. Although in reality any ‘bonds’ found matching these numbers will be by complete coincidence of the numbers being the same as actual financial instruments. Freemen believe that one can supposedly access the money represented by ones own bond though numerous pseudolegal methods and by filing various forms with government agencies. There are plenty of conmen, fraudsters and snake oil salesmen selling various methods and secrets on how to achieve this to gullible fools. Naturally none have ever been shown to work (as if this even needed to be stated!). The value of ones birth certificate bond can also supposedly be used to discharge ones debts and financial liabilities through a process known as ‘acceptance for value’ or ‘A4V’. Without the freeman having to gain direct access to the funds himself of course. The UK Treasury has stated that the existence of these bonds, as well as various other freeman financial concepts are myths.[11]
      [edit] Freeman failures

      Despite the numerous attempts to use freeman legal woo and their obvious failures freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.

      Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here – down to Black’s Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: Conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal – “I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” [the Judge] said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
      Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis they claim to be freemen on the land but the courts state that they have “no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution” and that there was “no legal significance” to the term ‘freeman on the land’ and that they would be tried anyway.
      Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested [2] after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent but gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
      Freeman ‘Brian-arthur: alexander’ tries to get out of speeding by telling a judge the law doesn’t apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.
      Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. He tells them that he doesn’t consent to their laws and that he isn’t an employee of the ‘corporation of Canada’. It doesn’t work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
      Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested Despite telling the police officer he doesn’t consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him in to custody anyway
      Darren Pollard gets arrested again after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was ‘Darren of the family Pollard’ and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for
      A Freewoman user ‘girlgye’ recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her ‘conveyance’ impounded. This inspite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women’s prison for contempt when she attempted to defend herself using more freeman woo.[12]
      Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500
      Canadian Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket.
      James-Michael: Tesi arrested. After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
      A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court’s jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.

      [edit] See also

      Social contract
      British Constitution Group
      Tax protester

      [edit] External links

      Raymond St Clair Freeman on the land
      Freeman on the land forum on the David Icke website
      The Freeman Movement and England, a major thread on the James Randi Education Foundation forums discussing and debunking freeman ideas
      Examples of Freeman success stories, another fun thread at the JREF forums

      [edit] Sources

      John Harris Talking About ‘Life’ at Truthjuice 17th Feb 2010
      John Harris – ‘It’s an illusion’ talk at the Stoke ‘Lawful Rebellion’ Conference[13]
      John Harris – It’s an illusion 2, at London
      Robert Menard Freeman On The Land

      [edit] Footnotes

      http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow/Freemen-are-told-they-will.6676742.jp ‘Freemen’ are told they will be tried
      ↑ Section 16 – See here for how the concept of fractional reserve banking in perverted to justify this claim
      ↑ Alex Jones calls freeman ideas ‘Quackery’
      ↑ How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash-confiscatory agency known to man … a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are She actually lists David Icke as a source in this book
      ↑ Google group search Google group’s earliest record of its usage seems to be June 2008
      ↑ definition of common law
      ↑ Robert Menard introduces Freeman ideas including a definition of common law
      ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Meet your Strawman (YouTube)
      ↑ Freeman In Gloucester Court 29th Jan 2010 Part 1.
      ↑ [http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/29165/response/76103/attach/2/foi%20gol.pdf Freedom of information request regarding Birth Tracking Bonds etc…
      ↑ At 38:04 in this video John Harris cites Baby P as an example when talking about social services taking peoples children away from them. Baby P was a case in the UK of a child who died at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend. Social services and the various other agencies involved were widely criticised for failing to take the child in to care and not identifying the risk to the child. Not only is it intellectually dishonest to cite an emotive real life example that actually contradicts your argument, to misrepresent a tragic case like this in such a way is downright offensive.

  5. Ultimately, the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it. you see why is it that someone can just be taken by the goverment and hurt you walk down the road and are stop by police whatsd your name i dont have a name if theres no cams its always the same a punch to the face from someone whos there to serve me how does that serve me or any of are people ruleing by fear is not the way and if you think that its ok for are army to not get hospitals for a people to suffer everyday yet we can give 500 millon to libya but we cant pay for a man to have a a stendy life who got blow up by an ied in a war he never beleaved in going to are people go without food are armys suffer theres a good reason why freemen do not trust anything Political the goverment to ment to be voted by the people for the people yet its voted for by the people and thay do not get a single thing thay ask for so how can that be govering those witch wish to be govened the political world is a place full of liers thay robbed millons yet only afew go to jail the man who robs a butty to fill his homeless belly is put in jail for singley wants to live yet all them guys can do what thay like no one voted for that

  6. Duncan,

    Thanks for your work.

    Just so you know, ‘Commonly Known As Dom’ (aka Dominic Lohan) does indeed have a history of disrupting progressive actions.

    For example, in 2010, 2 months before it ended, he turned up at:


    He spent most of his time scaring off unsuspecting visitors with his FOTL snake oil and disrupting the pleasant vibes everyone had been enjoying in the months prior to his arrival. Here he is on the doorstep of the village suggesting some of the residents are ‘saboteurs’ simply because they disagreed about pursuing the ‘freeman’ route in court:


    It certainly is a fact that ‘Commonly Known As Dom’ has a history of turning up and hijacking/disrupting/misdirecting actions.

    I’m sorry that he’s at yours.

    Keep up the good work. ‘Freeman’ BS needs to be neutralized because vulnerable people are falling for it.


    • Scrapper Duncan

      Thanks for this. I really appreciate others adding to this research; I’m devoting my time to Occupy London’s real legal work. Useful links.

  7. We know that this movement has been stage-managed and controlled from the very start, but some brave Freemen like Dom harboured hopes that it could be steered away from realising the goals of the powers that be.

    The goals of the Freemen of this world a closely aligned with the overall goals of the Occupy Movement, and if you did more than read establishment propaganda about our position you might see this to be true.

    I call myself a Freeman, and to be honest, I couldn’t give a toss about your opinions regarding our position, but it is noted that your actions have revealed you to be firmly in the back pocket of the 1% you claim to oppose, and we know who to blame as you and your kind lead the hapless people, who genuinely wish to bring about some real change, to the slaughter as the powers that be use this situation to tighten its grip upon the population, with your willing and enthusiastic assistance.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      You call yourself a Freeman but I call you a gullible idiot who treats Black’s Law Dictionary with a reverence it does not deserve. You couldn’t give a toss about my opinions yet you post 150+ words in rebuttal of them by way of a comment. You say “we” know that this movement has been stage-managed etc., but you don’t say who “we” are.

      One of the problems with Occupy is that it has not yet evolved overall goals. It has motivations but not goals. In a movement which is only a few weeks old, this is to be expected perhaps but it non-existent goals cannot be aligned with any other movement, strain though you will. What are the goals of the Freeman movement? Legal woo? Courts which only have to interpret three laws perhaps, lest the idiotic judges you would employ hurt their tiny brains?

  8. I have found the freeman on the land information very interesting and empowering. I believe many people have become apathetic about their position in relation to state. Your attack on those understandings appear to not take into consideration that people have a capacity to evaluate information and can extract from it as they choose. I extract many valuable and empowering perspectives that I also recognise give great hope to others.
    Your statement ‘Ultimately, the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it.’
    this statement is that ‘force’ is the primary authority in your argument
    force is of a lower order of consideration than intelligence or wisdom.
    your argument is ‘the government has a bigger club than you, so …..obay’
    I dissagree that use of force is senior to logic or reason.
    thank you….

    • Scrapper Duncan

      You run a website which promotes telepathy and have found the Freeman on the Land legal woo empowering? Of course people can evaluate information critically. That is exactly what I have done. Law is a subject which has to be learnt to be understood. We might wish it to be different but we cannot pretend that it is different from it actually is. You say,

      I extract many valuable and empowering perspectives that I also recognise give great hope to others.

      which is tantamount to saying that you just pick the bits you like and ignore the rest. How very convenient! You quote one of the other commentors as if they were me. You seem to struggle with reading even a simple dialogue.

      Many people throughout history have struggled with concepts more complicated than they can grasp. It happens to the best of us. Traditionally, people have sought their refuge in religion, which is what the Freeman on the Land Legal Woo Movement really amounts to, isn’t it? Some nice ideas, without any grounding in reality – they are not the law and never have been – rammed together in a cosy way, providing a comfort blanket for the feeble minded. Are you one of the feeble minded? Do you want to be comfortable or do you want to change the world for the better by joining a political movement which aims to do precisely that? That’s the choice you face.

      • Scrapper.. fitting name. haha Look mate the beauty of this world is that all have an opinion and theres also an old saying opinions are like assholes .. every bodies got one! ( some choose to talk from theirs ). I agree with you on one point, that there are some very misinformed parties out there giving false hope to people. On the other side of the coin ( there is always two sides)
        I find people who are blind generally will blind others as they too have not a clue where they are going and are like following sheep that fall of a cliff.
        the system is severely fucked and the reason for this can be traced back many many moons before you and in were even a itch in dads jocks. Man loves POWER and those who have it generally abuse it as there is a thing called GREED>>> it is an infection that can’t be killed by antibiotics and its been running rampant for decades … so you keep trusting a govern-man ..T that is using you’re blood as chattel, you are a commodity and proof is in the pudding if you would only open your eyes.. money is worth nothing now as it is created out of loans( debt) explain to me how you can pay back a debt with money that isn’t even created yet?? I’m not saying it is going to be easy but nothing is going to change, we are not going to get back our inalieable god given rights bestowed to us by the creator if we all have an opinion such as yours.. i for one want to be a free-man on the land as this was the way god left it for us to be. ( I’m not a religious nut) but in the bible it says no man shall be above another ”ALL MAN IS CREATED EQUALLY.’ this means that no man shall stand above or beneath. Unless they have caused harm, stollen, or lied in…

  9. I support the occupy protests and was there on the 15th oct in London…. I was the first one there with my mic and amplifier.
    I have been working with occupy Exeter and occupy Totnes.
    I think all debate is very worthwhile. I appologise if that was not your comment. The world appears to me to be under a great assumption of bloated power both legal and political. The idea of personal sovereignty is I believe , a natural state. The idea that others have assumed authority over me… simply because I was born… is abhorant to me.
    The QUESTION that I or others should or could conceed to this authority is certainly an excellant topic for debate, with many ethical questions arrising. I belive ‘Sovereigns on the land’ or ‘freemen’ and its interesting perspectives are certainly food for thought.
    I do not believe that our ‘Democracy’ is ‘People Power’ as the word is derived from. I do not believe that governments or law are representative of what the majority would want, nor do I consider that Law in its current ‘mind boggling’ complexity is in the interests of the majority. Am I right in saying that legal aid is now to be decided on a case by case basis by a judge? I believe I read something like that last week. Wow now we really are talking about justice for the rich only.
    How do you feel about our current legal system ? is it fair and reasonable ? how much would it cost me to take someone to court for say fraud in the council that stops me from building a house ?
    It appears to me that Money deffinately affects my ability to deffend or attack in law.
    Or do you feel that ‘The Crown’ is the only true authority, or the Law Society perhaps ?
    Do I have no authority over myself and am simply at the effect of Laws imposed on me ? This is not Civilisation… it’s not even civil.
    That is simply ‘we have decided what you can and cant do, obey or be punished’……. mmmm….. sounds like oppresion to me…. sounds like bullying.

    ‘Telepathy’ you extract from my website
    Many people believe there is more to life than meets the eye
    Some have spiritual understandings, I am sure you meet them at the Occupy protests. Greater awareness I feel sure you would agree is a desirable goal for us all.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      Thanks for clarifying your personal views. With regard to your legal questions, sorry, but I have neither the time nor inclination to answer them. They appear to be rhetorical? That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.

      However, I think there is much we agree about. Much of our current law prefers the rich over the poor, agreed.

      Under the Teutonic system of Parliamentary sovereignty, which is the best and most commonly accepted (by lawyers) historical explanation of the legal system we have now got in England & Wales, the Crown is the only true authority and breaches of laws made under that authority are wrong, even if the laws in question are later repealed. My view is that that is the law and that is wrong morally.

      I prefer the Scottish system, whereby a person has a moral duty to break a bad law to bring it into disuse. English law recognises this as one of the legal differences between Scotland and England but I must say, in the context of this discussion, this has nothing to do with the Freeman on the Land legal woo which you seem to be so keen on. The point being that just because I don’t agree with your supposed legal analysis, it does not mean that I prefer our existing system of law.

      A further point of clarification: the Law Society is the governing body for Solicitors.

  10. Are you threatened by the ‘freeman on the land’ movement because of you being a trained Barrister ….. you sound quite bitter… ?

    • Scrapper Duncan

      My concern about the Freeman on the Land legal woo is that it sucks in people who might use their energies in a more constructive manner. The people who perpetuate this nonsense get people into all sorts of trouble which they might otherwise avoid by some basic knowledge of civil procedure and the rules of evidence. It has helped no-one, ever, except in the sense that praying gives comfort to the troubled.

  11. Ah, now I begin to understand.
    In some ways I could agree with you.
    someone clutching at straws in a court as they are beaten into submission…
    such simple defences as ‘prove you are a judge’ or ‘I am not my name.’
    could be regarded as childish or idiotic defences, by an uninformed judge. A judge may choose to railroad his way through or over such argument, in which case he is then acting against the basic principals of law.
    why for example do you have an interest in the occupy movement ?
    do you feel that it good that people begin to voice their oppinions ?
    or is it simply you want new laws for greedy bankers ?
    There are very different reasons why people are at ‘occupy’….
    everything from ‘bring in a new tax’ to ‘democracy doesnt work’
    included in these often is ‘law is for the rich’ or ‘law and police are in the pay of the corporations or FREEMASONS’
    what is your interest in ‘occupy’ ?
    mine is ‘power back to the people’ and ‘disempower the global corporate Warfare machine’ …. lots more but that will do for now..

    • I think you’re probably right, there may well be much we agree is wrong with current balance of power in our society. However where I fundamentally disagree is that you persistently cling to the notion that some fairytale version of the law exists and that Judges who do not subscribe to this fantasy are somehow uninformed. It is you who is uninformed. The basic problem with the Freeman on the Land movement is that it seeks to reduce everything to a simplicity not present in real life. You people would never manage to run a health care system, administer social security properly or do anything much.

      Why did I get involved in Occupy? There are many reasons, which I have detailed across several posts on my blog. Certainly this comment thread is hardly the appropriate place to rehearse them. This is a comment thread on a post I wrote making it clear that idiotic solutions which create rather solve problems have no proper place in Occupy London. The Occupation seeks viable solutions instead of wishful thinking.

  12. so…. in the face of increasing government , corporate and legal power… people should simply rool over, … yes sir no sir three bags full sir ?
    do you not recognise that people are disempowered and apathetic in the face of ‘ our club is bigger than yours, obay or be punnished’
    that MAY be accepted … as long as people are in agreement with the overall impetus of the society…. but right now… bombings , and the planet controlled by the banks…
    the the FUNBDAMENTALS of the society are gonna’ get attacked…
    like ‘LAW’ where did that come from, who invented it, what is its purpose… oh FREEMASONS….. CONTROL…..
    what do you suggest instead of these basic questions ?
    or do you feel the rule of law must be obeyed without questioning its basis ?

    • Scrapper Duncan

      I have suggested many solutions, as you would know if you actually read my blog rather than wasting your time by endlessly commenting on this one particular post. If you read my blog, you will see that I have offered my legal skills in defence of Occupy London but that generally I support the policy platform promoted by the Green Party.

      Perhaps you should explain the solution you proffer? You don’t seem interested in coherent argument. Instead you prefer rambling, disconnected stream of consciousness nonsense which you now break up with text shouting. Who are you shouting at?

      Read my blog, watch my videos. You will see that I am advocating mass civil disobedience to bring about a different type of society but not one run by idiots like you.

      Instead of complaining, why don’t you state what your manifesto is? What changes would you bring about? What are your policies? I’ve given you plenty of time and space to explain yourself here but at the end of the day, this is my blog, not yours. You’ve wasted the opportunities to comment that you’ve used so far.

      Why not make good use of your next chance? I’ll give you a couple more chances to make a coherent statement about what laws you would like to see introduced. If you can’t manage that, I’ll cut you off from posting more comments. I’m all for debate but I’m completely opposed to time wasting.

  13. I found your posts to be informative about certain things, but I find you are a little ad-hominem in a thinly disguised way with your retorts. “Fiction arises from law, law does not arise from fiction”. Are you familiar with this tract? However law is fiction. Writing/transcribing something onto any medium does not necessarily make it so. From what I have gleaned by reading about 90% of the page, you are an officer of the court or training to be so. So while you will deride people for taking a seemingly overly-simplistic point of view of the legal system you have/are learning, clearly learning is an ongoing process in the lives of intelligent people, you yourself are constrained in your viewpoints due to the rigour required to mire oneself in the overly complex legal system. What if it is all really simple and you/others just can’t see the forest for the trees? Lex Maxima and Legis Minima are not the same thing. Legislation is not law, it masquerades as law. Statutes are not law, they are given “the force of law”, acts are not law, they too are given “the colour of law”. Might is not right. “Authority” only stems from the right of the author of a written statement. The legal system cannot abolish the overall tenets of the common law. It can only build upon or improve the law. Where it comes into conflict with the law, it must fail. “Expression unius est exclusio alterius”. Legal precedent is only useful to a judge to determine a suitable punishment or fine if he finds the defendant guilty based upon the available evidence and the circumstances of the case in front of him. The law must be the litmus test to determine guilt. Using precedent from one case to rule on another case is deeply flawed as the circumstances of the case before the court and the defendant are severed and not associated to the people or organizations against whom previous decision were levelled(unless that is provable). I can agree with you on some things, such as people professing to be “freemen” can be childish and ignorant, however as “ignorance of the law is no excuse” then people acting as corporate fictions to commit extortion of people against whom allegations are levelled are clearly committing fraud, which the law forbids. The legal definition of extortion is “The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer”. Effectively, this one statement alone shows the vast majority of the legal system is designed around fraud. The legal definition of an “allegation”, such as when a police officer gives you a speeding ticket, is “an accusation without lawful proof”. I will retire from this now so you can respond. I am a free man. I have gone to court many times in the defense of others and in my own defense and use thousand-dollar words the judge needs to research, so I can tell you that being a free man in the sight of God is worth any number of high priced lawyers or attorneys when you speak to the judge in the correct manner because you actually know the law, have good diction, have all of your wits about you and speak with the proper respect which you would accord any other human being. BTW, attorney means “an agent involved in the transfer of property”. Never trust a lawyer. Learn your rights, or you have no rights, learn the law or be subject to the law. Respect the rights of others, respect and observe the law and no one can touch you.

    • Scrapper Duncan

      I haven’t got time to deconstruct this rubbish now but suffice it to say that if anything written down is fiction then your entire comment is also fiction. C’mon! There’s so many flaws in what you’ve written that it would take me a good ten minutes to go through them. Today, I don’t have ten minutes.

      Whatever point it is that you seek to make, don’t you think it would be easier for others to read if you wrote in paragraphs? Also, please don’t submit your comments twice. Once is enough. The identical version of this comment which you submitted seconds after this one will not be published…

  14. hmmm…that should read “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”. I guess I started thinking in English and typed the rest in latin…enjoy life

    • Scrapper Duncan

      Probably best to avoid latin eh? After all, its use is (and always has been) exclusionary and it was banned from the English Civil Procedure in 1999.

  15. you have no answers. Just vitriol. You will make a fine lawyer.(coughs)

    • I’m a member of the Green Party, which has the most detailed policy platform out of all the political parties. The so-called Freeman on the Land movement simply wants to wind the legal clock back to a point where we have to start writing law again. That’s not a solution, it’s just time wasting.

      • No we do not. We want it to evolve. You claim we want to wind it back to avoid having to look at the evolution we see. Tell me, why must people in todays age elect any party? We are tired of the party system, for none of them represent us properly. We are tired of masters and those who make promises in order to be appointed or elected as one. We do not trust any of you any more. And with good reason.

        • Scrapper Duncan

          Well all the other ‘Freemen’ commenting on this blog want to abolish law and return it to the state it was in just before the Magna Carta was signed. You say otherwise. Fine. Whatever.

          The thing about political parties is that they are collectives of people who agree political strategies and then work together to carry them out. If you join a democratic party, then you can be the master of it. Good luck with your non-voting strategy! You’re doomed to be a permanent victim of the society you dislike so much.

Leave a Reply