As regular readers and followers of the Freeman on the Land Cult will know, some time ago I wrote a satirical post about a cult member Dominic Lohan. He preaches legal woo which is as hilariously mistaken as to law as anything you are ever likely to read. On 9th November 2011 two Occupy London protestors, Dominic Lohan and Mark Edwards, scuffled with each other in St Paul’s Churchyard and both were arrested. Having written about Mr Lohan and had Mr Edwards as a neighbour in Occupy London (he had parked his tent next to mine near the beginning of the original encampment), I took an interest in the case. Consequently I attended the trial of Mr Edwards on 4th January 2012. The charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.
The following day I wrote about Dominic Lohan and the antics of his cultish friends again, making the point that although he insists in public that courts do not have the proper jurisdiction to hear cases he must have hypocritically accepted their remit over him because he had agreed to bail. On 6th January 2011 he attended a committal hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and again accepted bail conditions, in stark contrast to everything he says in public about his ability to frustrate the ordinary operation of the courts by relying on the Magna Carta. Whether or not he attempted to insist that the magistrates produce their actual oaths, as per the Freeman cult’s creed, I do not know. He’s due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court again on 3rd April 2012 at 2:00pm with a time estimate for his trial of an hour and a half on the following charges:
- “On 09/11/2011 at Bishopsgate Police Station, The City Of London, being a person in police detention arrested for and at the time the requirement was made had not been charged with an offence, namely possession of a class A drug , contained within Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, failed without good cause to provide a non intimate sample for the purpose of ascertaining whether you had a Class ‘A’ drug specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in your body Contrary to sections 63B(8) and 63C(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Contrary to sections 63B(8) and 63C(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
- “On 09/11/2011 at St Pauls Churchyard, The City Of London used towards Mark Edwards threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used against him by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by him whereby that person was likely to believe that such violence would be used, or it was likely that such violence would be provoked Contrary to section 4(1) and (4) of the Public Order Act 1986. Contrary to section 4(1) and (4) of the Public Order Act 1986.”
Dominic Lohan insists in public that he does not use money so it will be interesting to watch him walking to court on 3rd April 2012, unless he doesn’t mind someone else paying for transport on his behalf?
The Freeman cult makes much of s.61 of the Magna Carta. They say that it allows them to force a judge to produce his actual oath. The Magna Carta was written in medievalist shortform latin. It wasn’t intended for general reading at the time. In 1215 nothing was but the Magna Carta is particularly hard to understand. Almost no word, on the single sheet of vellum which it was written on, is complete. They’re not just classical latin or camp latin words that were shortened – they are a medieval variation. I don’t mind admitting that I am not one of the few scholars in medievalist shortform latin in this country but there are plenty of translations around. Here is the section so loved by the Freeman cult:
SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.
Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.
If one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.
In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.
The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.
We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.
As you can see, there is nothing there about judges being required to produce a written form of their oaths before conducting trials. It is all about the barons who had just won new rights from the king. The Freeman cult make much nonsense out of this but the implication is clear – they wish to abolish our modern representative democracy and return the country to a system of law best suited to warlords fighting over territory, with no rights for anyone else, Mr Lohan included. Perhaps he fancies his chances as a baron? Without substantial land and wealth, he wouldn’t last five minutes.
The fact is that the Freeman on the Land cult abuses legal concepts in much the same way as a fundamentalist religious cult abuses general accepted spiritual wisdom. They are disinterested in the actual law but like to borrow catchphrases from it, so that they can quote from senior judges to promote their cause. Essentially, they claim they can opt out of being governed on the basis that they did not give their consent to the law. This convenient concept is mired in the language of the Magna Carta because the consent of the barons was pivotal to its creation. They obsess with simple notions from the early law of contract and insist that it is applicable to all other branches of law. Despite the repeated failure of their pseudo-defence (example), they proselytise that it works in practice. The creed becomes true comedy with its constant references to maritime law, which stems from a serious distortion of the meanings of certain words, eg. citizenship. Anyone who challenges the cult is called a shill. In keeping with other cults, all criticism is taken as an attack on the truth. The cult’s promise to free its followers from debt is analogous to a religion’s promise to free sinners from hell.
The rational wiki has produced a list of various occasions when the Freeman on the Land arguments have utterly failed:
- 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”, 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 after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent. He 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 in spite 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.
- 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.
The question is will ‘the man commonly known as dom’ have any more luck with a Freeman defence or will he abandon it in the face of more practical considerations?
I think you have the freeman movement all wrong! They are NOT against the law, just statutes which as you are well aware are victimless crimes … purely revenue gathering by the sheriff of nottingham & his policy enforcement officers. All freeman from what I can gather follow common law, which is what the bible tells us to do, in fact the queen swore an oath before god during her coronation that she would uphold gods law … now correct me if I’m wrong here, but gods book clearly states that “Man is NOT allowed to make his own laws” … so she signs her first statute/act into power & breaks her oath to the people!
Since you claim to be a barrister (heresay) what foundation eveidence do you have that says acts apply to ME, me personally? I always thought (again correct me if I’m wrong), that acts are FORCED upon us, just like the school yard bully sayign do this or else … so the government use the police force to force us to comply with their rules?
Of course I am always open to other suggestions, but proof is what we ned here. It seems you have the freeman movement wrong, they dont mind paying their way in life, but are sick & tired of being ripped off by a country that doesnt give a damn … bails out banks & goes to war against innocent people, yet cant afford to look after its own.
Respectfully
Mac
Dom’s truths resonate.. its not that complicated… cooperation and collaboration .. unity and the only true tribe *humanity* the rest is just, well, scrappydom… you can bash out the paragraphs, til you find your true soul and then when your embrace the BIG LOVE we’ll be there to meet you on the green xx… much love man (0: [from across the big pond]
I think we can agree that Dominic Lohan’s legal woo is simplistic. The question is whether he will use it in his trial?
Dom doesn’t employ anything really pertaining to the Freeman-on-the-Land methodology. The fact that he disingushes himself from titles derived from the state is about the long and short of it.
I disagree. I’ve heard him say much more.
Got to admit….your good.
Why don’t you help Dom.
I ask you…..use that skill to try and prove that their is some truth in the Freeman on the land path. ( Now that…… would take you out of mediocracy and your destany with bed bugs;-)
No amount of skill can prove truth where none exists.
please please please, which mainstream, patriotic, goverment ass sucking, narcissistic asshole does these posts? it kills me how they try and compare these free minded human beings to religious cults when it is quite clear that religion has played a massive part in the world governments deluding the majority of the people to live a “normal” life, do you know how the majority of christians talk in a monotonous, robotic square headed fashion, we may aswell be machines, please have a look at reality and life you asshole, when you die you will truly regret the fact you have played a part in trying to trick the people that people who really care about the world are trying to trick them, yes i can write all this bullshit because im sat at a keyboard exactly the same as you, so please people dont take this asshole seriously look at the world and corruption around you all caused through being controlled there are people out there trying to help the human race brake free but we wont with ass holes like this tapping his fingers for the government.
By your way of thinking anyone who challenges you works for the government?!
Great words by Mac, Why you so against it Duncan..?
I couldn’t agree more with Macs words!
Does it not resonate with you?
No, it does not. It is utter nonsense
Duncan, why don’t you assist Dom, what he says is true, do your research.
It isn’t true. Why would I assist someone who gives erroneous advice to others. The question is whether he will use legal woo in his own defence?
Hi Duncan,
I’d heard that talking about freemen at all got you an instant earful of barmy but hadn’t realised how bad it was until I read your blog!
I suppose that its not surprising when you spend any time on their websites and see how long it takes until you find a link to some NWO/Illuminati conspiracy theory site or some such.
Someone sensible and powerful within their organisation (if there is such a person) really needs to stand up and just say “listen guys.. we’re free to dislike the state, or dislike statutes, or long for some legal system based on natural law and we can even go and protest and campaign to try to change these things but what we CANNOT do is just pretend that the state and statutes and law don’t apply to us when they demonstrably do..”
Perhaps then they could be taken halfway seriously as a movement rather than some sort of hysterical, reality-denialist cult.
Well said Brian. Unfortunately these people seem bent on losing every argument they can drag people into.
you sound like a troll to me scrapper duncan – let your ego go and stand up for what is right, Mac was absolutely ON THE NAIL with what he said yet you refuse him the courtesy of an answer. SHAME ON YOU!
I haven’t refused. I just haven’t got around to it yet. Mind you, anyone reading this little thread can see what I think of his comment. Why do you feel the need to shout? Is it because you aren’t able to make your point persuasively without resorting to bullying tactics?
It wasn’t a shout, it was purely for emphasis as we can’t utilise bold or italics. you haven’t got round to answering his comment yet despite he posted nearly 2 and a half days ago, yet you’ve responded to every other comment :/
Hey, I’m a busy fellow! Also, I have referenced his comment in responses to other commentators. I’m not running one to one tutorial sessions here… anyone reading this thread can see what I think of the only comment I haven’t so far responded to: it’s nonsense from start to finish.
There are plenty of words you can use to express yourself. Capitalisation is well recognised as shouting on the internet. If you really feel your vocabulary doesn’t equip you with the rhetorical flourishes necessary to adequately convey yourself, there are plenty of other typographical techniques to hand. *sighs*
PS read the html instructions underneath the comment form which explains how to decorate your text. Html code is very easy to use; if you’re unfamiliar with it, 10 minutes reading via google will teach you enough to get going…
@Brian maybe you can show us on or by whose authority the govt can impose laws and statutes dreamt up by govt lawyers on the people of england without their consent, maybe you can provide a link or two to back up what you claim.
You’re clearly one of those people that is quite happy for all your right’s being sold to the E.U. so you end up with none and that’s fine, if you want to be governed by them. The queen however, swore on her coronation oath to rule according to the laws of God – as soon as she signed the first bit of legislation into being that was not in the best interest of the people thereby imposing on the people of england she broke that oath and therefore nullified her contract with the people and should have at that time been deposed.
You’re the person making unsubstantiated claims!
Grandiloquence doesn’t become anyone scrapper.
You should be an MP I think you’d fit in well.
As far as Laws of the internet go I don’t, as you could probably gather, abide by them unlike the majority of people, therefore you can assume I was shouting all you like, I however, am the only person who can say what I inferred as I did in my last comment regard the lack of bold type and italicisation being available for emphasis. Clearly you don’t want to or didn’t accept that explanation, that is also fine.
Have a good evening.
Thanks, I will.
I think you would make a great MP Scrapper..
You would fit in really well!
Roy, I’m not here to argue with you or run you down, I don’t know you to run you down & that’s not how I work. I admire you taking time to reply to so many people, others would rub out what they consider to be negative comments, however you haven’t … I call that bgeing fair, for that I thank you.
I’m going to take you at face value & agree that you are a barrister, so I’m going to ask if you know “Who has more authority over me, than myself” and who gives them that authority over me??
This is the bottom line behind freeman thinking, the freedom to govern oneself as long as NO Injury, Harm, Loss or Fraud is commited during self governance. As a barrister I’m sure you are well aware that “Likely” is a CRIME. This is one thing I have problems with personally.
I don’t want to argue & bicker with you, far from it … I want to learn what you know & apply to what I know and from this will come some understanding & if we are both really lucky, some peace between the freeman movement & the legal profession here in the UK.
Let’s say “You are right”, please tell the freemen reading this blog how the country has more authority over them, than themselves … because that would make us ALL slaves, which I am led to beleive is outlawed in the UK.
I also understand that if the freemen are right in their beleifs, then many solicitors & barristers will be out of a job or have to take a severe pay cut as their skills might no longer be needed … so I understand your reason to say that all freemen are wrong, self preservation is the strongest of all human traits.
Respectfully
Mac
It’s Mr Roy to you, by the way. In a democratic society law must have authority over all without exception. Nobody is above the law. The law is granted this authority by the popular mandate given to the government and, in effect, to the court system. In England the law says that Parliament is sovereign over all but in Scotland the law says that the people are sovereign.
The bottom line you describe could easily be considered part of the bottom line in a great deal of legal systems. Systems that haven’t had that bottom line usually collapse through one method of revolt or another. What differentiates the Cult’s creed from a conventional interpretation of law is its insistences that individuals cannot have laws imposed on them by any system of governance whatsoever. Freemen reject the authority of a collective of people, such as, for example, the General Assembly of OccupyLSX.
You are right to say that many crimes do not require absolute intention but a recklessness as to whether a particular outcome was likely or not. Without that reckoning, people can escape all manner of harm for which they are culpable. Let’s take an extreme example: the man who whilst driving a car suddenly dons a blindfold, mounts the pavement accidentally and kills children. Extreme examples are useful for shortening the debate by making the point simply. In this example, the man did not intend to kill the children but his behaviour was likely to have that result. I’m sure you would agree that he should be punished for his reckless behaviour?
Slavery is a very problem in the modern world but I doubt very much that you are a slave. Did your master tell you to type out your comment on my blog? A slave has no freedom of any kind, as you well know. Many people suffer enslavement, even today so I caution against the misappropriation of this term.
If the Freemen Cult got its way and almost all law was abolished they would not abolish the right of a party before a judge to be represented by an advocate. Therefore, there would be even more work for ‘lawyers’ because without law there would be a very great risk of inconsistent decisions between courts across the country and many people would consider their chances bettered by a lawyer skilled in courtroom oratory. Curiously, whilst the Freemen Cult wants to abolish all statutes etc., it will need to have some system of overarching law to govern how the courts themselves will be constituted. Without that, each court will be the product of the local mob. There needs to be some system which everyone can understand so that all the courts have the same powers and all the judges are chosen in the same way.
Since the proprietary rights which the Freeman Cult is so keen to protect require a system of law to create the courts which will protect them. Frankly, the Freemen Cult followers might as well just go and join the thieving Tory bastards who also want to roll back government interference in our lives, worship the individual above all and have no problem with ultra-rightwingers in their midst. They might even get some power.
My apologies Duncan, the problem is that I have a friend called Robert Duncan & I mixed your surname with your christian name, it was not intentional.
I can of course see your point about the blind folded gent crashing into children, but what if he was driving on a country track like we have out here in the sticks … the chances are that blind folded gent would crash into a hedge or ditch, hurting no one but his pride. So that kicks the childrens argument out of the window! If he did indeed kill the children is it an ACT he would be punished under or COMMON LAW! Im sure that would be common law murder, so acts still do not cover as much as common law.
I notice you said in England that the government are soveriegn according to law, can you please point me to that law? For me to take your word would be foolish in the extreme, we must all have Foundation evidence & I’m sure you wouldnt beleive me if I quoted something, unless I gave the proof.
For those reading this who might not know the true meaning of the word CULT it’s defined as follows, “The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre”. Which of course applies to our government quite nicely.
Let’s take a look at slavery shall we Duncan. Do you remember the hit TV series called “Roots”? Now imagine You are a slavemaster! how would you incorporate that into modern life without arousing suspicions of unlawful slavery?
Maybe you would make your slaves pay for their own food, shelter & anything else that would be of benefit to your slaves as well as yourself … but wait just one moment …. isnt that what we have in the 21st century? We have masters making us pay for crap quality food, we have masters taking money from our pockets that could be used to feed our children, we have masters using our money to better themselves at our expense, we have masters inflicting stupid harm causing pharamceutical products upon us & all the time we the slaves think we are FREE!
Respectfully
Mac
Apologies accepted. Changing the terms of the example do not change the point: when you use a finger to point out the moon, you stop looking at the finger. The example I gave would not be murder under the common law, which is why Parliament created the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
The bigger point is that the Freeman Cult wish to remove all precedents in common law in any event. This means that there would be no way of telling what could be prosecuted and what would not. I’ve debated with other cult followers in other threads on this blog this very point and they have routinely insisted that they wish to abolish all precedent and just have judges make sensible decisions based on a finite number of principles, which is likely to lead to inconsistent verdicts.
I don’t own a tv and haven’t watched it for many years, so it’s impossible for me to understand your example. Slaves don’t own money though. Serfs do, wage earners under capitalism do and there are other types of person who does but your example doesn’t make sense because a slave is someone who owns nothing, not even their own liberty. The master-servant relationship extends beyond the master-slave relationship. You seem keen on the definitions of words, so why misuse the word slave?
What on earth do you mean by “Foundation evidence”?
You misquote me. You claim I said,
when I actually said,
You have substitued the word “parliament” with the word “government”. That is a classic technique used by Freemen cult followers, isn’t it? Sloppy attention to the detail of what someone says. All of the Freemen cult websites and forums are redolent with this substitution tactic.
You demand that I provide you with proof that the common law accepts the doctrine of parliamentary soveriegnty? Here’s a recent example: the case of R (Jackson) v Attorney General in 2005 in which the senior judge Lord Bingham declared, “The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of … Parliament.” There are literally tens of thousands of examples. Why not look up some yourself, since you’re so interested?
You’re commenting on a post which in its title and last line begs a question. Your turn: can you answer it?