Freemen On The Land / Lawful Rebellion

Yithian

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
37,400
Location
East of Suez
I continually seem to be figuratively bumping into the views, posts and websites of people who seem to fervently believe in this movement and the legal argument that underpins it.

The latest was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... LxWnstCJOU
(Warning - not terribly literate - and I don't know how a speeding fine is part of admiralty law!) A search around youtube gives many more jumpy-videos from courtrooms and mini-protests.

Principles of the Freeman on the Land movement

There is some debate within the movement on exactly how its principles are established and operate, and to a certain extent they are constantly evolving both on the basis of research into the law and in the light of the practical application of these maxims. However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:

The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that jurisdiction. A natural person is endowed with a number of inalienable, God-given rights. That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.

By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally applicable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.

The instrument that is held to represent a given individual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.

The validity of such a contract is questionable because the contract as represented by a birth certificate is entered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) and the state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.

It follows that if the contract is deemed void, it may be possible to separate the natural person (common law) from the legal fiction (civil law). As a result, whereas the birth certificate (as a piece of paper) is evidence of the legal fiction contracting with the state, that birth certificate is not the same as the natural person represented by the living individual.

Freemen make a distinction between the name of their legal fiction (John Smith) and their natural name (which may take many forms, but is usually expressed as "John: as commonly called of the family Smith", "John: Smith" or similar.) They refer to the legal fiction as a "straw man"9 and maintain that it is possible for the natural person to control the straw man as a legal fiction for the purposes of contracting with third parties, without at any point entering into liability on behalf of the natural person.

www.libertarian.co.uk/?q=node/1
Click to expand...

In short, there's a belief that one can somehow opt-out of statute law (speeding, council tax, TV licences etc.). They seem to have brought about a number of anomalies in court-rooms (largely due to the judges not grasping the recondite laws they cite).

Anyway, apparently some of it comes from this chap:
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/search?q=freeman
(Start at the bottom and work upwards)

There's an awful lot more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/?q=node/1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ullet-debt

Lots more:
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/
 
I met a guy quite recently who tried to convince me of this - and got quite hot under the collar when I told him I thought it might just be a load of old bollocks. (Admittedly that was mainly because I just wanted him to stop and go away - I'd already decided to look it up in my own time.)

To be honest, what really pissed me off about his whole argument - and nothing I've seen has done much to disabuse me of the feeling - was that it was all so grindingly petty. Seems to me that this really isn't a glorious blow for life, liberty and individual freedom - rather a way of justifying bad driving and getting out of paying TV licenses and willingly accrued debts.
 
I've come across the straw man website before:

yourstrawman.com/
Link is dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120509061545/http://www.yourstrawman.com/

I'm really not sure about the legitimacy of these arguments. Even if you spoke to a solicitor about it, they may be unable to give you a definitive answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
They disrupt campaigns with their nonsense. In one case recently a house repossession was stopped. They claimed it was because thery recited Admiralty Law and sections of the Constitution at bailiffs. The reality was that number of people who turned up made proceeding with the repossession unwise.

In another case a Freeman facing a public order charge was committed to custody for psychiatric observation when he came out with his non-contracting line. This may also have had someting to do withe appearance and demeanour of the Freeman in question though.

The Prison Governor turned him away saying he had no room! Governors are capable of smelling a potential Habeas Corpus case. I was involved in a similar case when i was accused of assault. The assaultee was committed to custody for psychiatric observation! Again the Governor had no room.
 
I know a group of people who are quite excited about the idea that they don't have to pay taxes - one of them wanted to move into our flat and when we were explaining the council tax etc, he was all like 'I've got a theory that I don't have to pay that'.

This same group of people seem to have some extremely open-minded view re: the human body's need for food, the bosnian pyramids, conspiracy theories, 2012, etc, FWIW
 
So, yer man states:

We need four basic laws that cover us for everything.

Here they are in one sentence: do not harm, injure, cause loss, or make mischief with contracts. Job done.
Click to expand...

But (unless libertarian.co.uk has got it wrong):

...it is possible for the natural person to control the straw man as a legal fiction for the purposes of contracting with third parties, without at any point entering into liability on behalf of the natural person.
Click to expand...

Call me thick if you like - but isn't the latter a license to 'make mischief with contracts'?

You willingly enter a contract (eg a mortgage) using your straw man to do so, and then refuse to pay up using the 'natural person' defence.

What a load of self-serving bollocks.
 
I recall now that the conversation I mentioned earlier came about because the man in question wanted to close a public footpath which went across his land (so much for freedom then :roll: ).

I pointed out - probably rather sharply, as I have a low opinion of people who try to close footpaths - that if he really believed in the freeman stuff then he better make sure whether the footpath came into existence via common or statute law (either is possible). He clearly had no idea what the difference was and didn't realise that the tripe he was spouting depended on that difference - I suspect he didn't care.

As I say - self-serving bollocks.
 
Spookdaddy said:
You willingly enter a contract (eg a mortgage) using your straw man to do so, and then refuse to pay up using the 'natural person' defence.

What a load of self-serving bollocks.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better myself. :lol:
 
James_H2 said:
I know a group of people who are quite excited about the idea that they don't have to pay taxes - one of them wanted to move into our flat and when we were explaining the council tax etc, he was all like 'I've got a theory that I don't have to pay that'.

This same group of people seem to have some extremely open-minded view re: the human body's need for food, the bosnian pyramids, conspiracy theories, 2012, etc, FWIW
Click to expand...

Don't allow such a person to live in your place, otherwise you may end up paying their debts.
 
Mythopoeika said:
James_H2 said:
I know a group of people who are quite excited about the idea that they don't have to pay taxes - one of them wanted to move into our flat and when we were explaining the council tax etc, he was all like 'I've got a theory that I don't have to pay that'.

This same group of people seem to have some extremely open-minded view re: the human body's need for food, the bosnian pyramids, conspiracy theories, 2012, etc, FWIW
Click to expand...

Don't allow such a person to live in your place, otherwise you may end up paying their debts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and be very wary of buying a round with them.

He: Oh yes, you see, but you bought a pint of lager for John Smith, whereas the person you are now asking to reciprocate - that is I, John: as commonly called of the family Smith - have not entered into any liablity on behalf of the formerly named straw man. Furthermore, to whit and as such, I am also not obliged to produce any pork-scratchings or return that fiver I (sorry...he) borrowed last night - or do any washing up.

You: I hereby declare that the hefty punch up the bracket I have just delivered was addressed to John Smith - not to you, John: as commonly called of the family Smith - and therefore no liability is accepted and no further action between the two of us is intended or will be entered upon. The same could be said of the series of heavy blows I am about to deliver with this bar-stool.

Edited for spelling.
 
Mythopoeika said:
James_H2 said:
I know a group of people who are quite excited about the idea that they don't have to pay taxes - one of them wanted to move into our flat and when we were explaining the council tax etc, he was all like 'I've got a theory that I don't have to pay that'.

This same group of people seem to have some extremely open-minded view re: the human body's need for food, the bosnian pyramids, conspiracy theories, 2012, etc, FWIW
Click to expand...

Don't allow such a person to live in your place, otherwise you may end up paying their debts.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, we didn't ;)
 
Isn't that paragon of levelheadedness Noel Edmonds one of these types?
 
gncxx said:
Isn't that paragon of levelheadedness Noel Edmonds one of these types?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, he crossed my mind as well when I was first responding to this story - along with the Clarkson thing.
 
Better watch what you say - apparently Noel trawls the internet seeking comments about himself and if you've criticised him you go on his "list". I think Bruno Brookes used to do this too.
 
Spookdaddy said:
What a load of self-serving bollocks.
Click to expand...
And with that, there really isn't anything else to be said on the matter.

After all, the motto of the Libertarian Movement is "I'm alright, Jack."
 
Spookdaddy said:
I met a guy quite recently who tried to convince me of this - and got quite hot under the collar when I told him I thought it might just be a load of old bollocks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've met one or two, and they do seem to be growing in number. What they each have in common is a serious aversion to having their world-view challenged in any way at all. Though they will scoff, they're just as extreme in mentality as any other extremist - like all such people, any doubt expressed toward their viewpoint is because the doubter has obviously been brainwashed by The Man.

At its heart, the Freeman thing is a charter for van Vogt Right-Men. "Do what I want because I can, and will justify anything to myself, as I am the only authority to whom I must listen."*

Yep, it's all bollocks of a high degree.

*At which point you can become a group moderator.
 
stuneville said:
...

At its heart, the Freeman thing is a charter for van Vogt Right-Men. "Do what I want because I can, and will justify anything to myself, as I am the only authority to whom I must listen."*

Yep, it's all bollocks of a high degree.

*At which point you can become a group moderator.
Click to expand...
At which point, you have to wonder when they will decide to start buying up an arsenal, so that they can take out that shopping centre, where they once had a disagreement with security, about whether their position was one of legitimate property rights, or shoplifting.

This kind of torturous, self-serving, thinking has, 'tea party', written all over it. For one thing, Brits are subjects of the Crown. The sovereign power of the Crown now reside with Parliament. Those powers usually mean that the Crown can do what it likes with its subject, unless bound by statute. That's why the, Magna Carta, was seen as such a breakthrough. Yes, there is such a thing as, Common Law, but, as far as I know, it's only there as long as Parliament, allows it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty#United_Kingdom

United Kingdom

Main article: Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom
History

Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
—A.V. Dicey Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)
Click to expand...

During the 17th century the idea grew in England that parliament (House of Lords and House of Commons) shared in the sovereignty, based on an entirely erroneous notion of the history of parliament.[6] It was not until the changing of the Coronation Oath in the Coronation Oath Act 1688 as part of the Glorious Revolution that Parliament was recognised as part of the constitutional structure, with laws being considered to emanate from parliament and not just the King.[7] It is arguable whether the concept of parliamentary supremacy arose from the Acts of Union 1707 or was a doctrine that evolved thereafter.[8] After 1689 English parliamentary supremacy began to be seen in the relation of the English parliament to those of Scotland and Ireland. The Act of Settlement 1700 made a presumption upon Scotland: the Scots retaliated with the Act of Security 1704, which was countered by the Alien Act 1705: the issue was settled by the Union of English and Scottish parliaments in 1707 which created a new British parliament, though "in essence it was just an extension of the English parliament".[9] The autonomy of the Irish parliament also came under attack and the Declaratory Act 1720 made the Irish parliament a dependency. The so-called Constitution of 1782 removed British parliamentary supremacy for a short period but then the Irish parliament was merged with Britain's in the Acts of Union 1801.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

* Parliament can make laws concerning anything.

* No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).

* A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

Some scholars and judges have questioned the traditional view that Parliament cannot bind itself, arguing that it can impose procedural (or "manner and form") restrictions on itself, since the legislature must be constituted and regulated by legal rules.[10]

The notion of parliamentary sovereignty began to be challenged with the Parliament Act 1911 which changed the nature of what was meant by parliament, as Dicey regretfully noted in the Introduction to the 8th edition of his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1915), but that while the reality was now Cabinet and political party were supreme (pp lxxii-lxxiv), in law parliament was still sovereign albeit that "the share of sovereignty" of the Commons had increased (p xlii).

Parliamentary sovereignty was further undermined by the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, which effectively recognised the concept of consent rather than the law as the source of legitimacy, and the United Nations Act 1946 which bound the UK to an external organisation and restricted parliament's absolute sovereignty. In theory Parliament could repeal the Act and withdraw from the United Nations.

Parliament also renounced its sovereignty over the legislatures of former dominions and colonies in the British Empire. Following the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster 1931 established a status of legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, and provided that Acts passed by the UK Parliament would not apply in the dominions without a dominion's express consent. It is difficult to see how the UK could later resile from that position. By way of further example, the UK Parliament passed the Canada Act 1982 which stated that the UK Parliament would no longer be able to amend the Canadian constitution. If the UK parliament were to repeal or amend the Canada Act 1982, it would be unenforceable as Canada is no longer subject to UK sovereignty."[11] However, such renunciatons do not affect the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

European law does not recognise the British concept of parliamentary supremacy.[12] The UK courts currently recognize the supremacy of EU law on those subjects where the EU can legislate.[13][14] However, this supremacy conceptually derives from the European Communities Act 1972 and its successors, which could in theory be repealed by a future parliament. No sovereign state has ever left the EU, but since the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 there is now a defined process for doing so.

...
Click to expand...
The bit I've emphasised also suggests one possible reason why the right in the UK is so desperate to undermine the various international treaties, like the European Convention on Human Rights

I would like to know where this idea originally came from and whether it's had the same sort of think tankery and financial backing, as the US Tea Party set.
 
Brits are subjects of the Crown.
Click to expand...

Just thinking out of the box - when do they become subjects of the Crown? At birth? At conception? When they can understand what the concept means? How does this actually square up with the concepts of human rights?

My point is - all law is the art of the possible, in other words it is only law as long as the majority accept it or the privileged few have the power to enforce it and it does not defeat itself with its own absurdity. Like paper money, its a convenient fiction. There are no absolutes, no concrete unalienable values. You can even kill someone without penalty if the state tells you to.

Therefore anyone with a mind set that way can pick holes, and dogmatic enforcement without common sense can create unworkable contradiction.

One suspects that the limit of absurdity in the application of law is not far off.
 
Cochise said:
Brits are subjects of the Crown.
Click to expand...

Just thinking out of the box - when do they become subjects of the Crown? At birth? At conception? When they can understand what the concept means? How does this actually square up with the concepts of human rights?

My point is - all law is the art of the possible, in other words it is only law as long as the majority accept it or the opriveleged few have the power to enforce it and it does not defeat itself with its own absurdity. Like paper money, its a convenient fiction. There are no absolutes, no concrete unaliable values. You can even kill someone without penalty if the state tells you to.

Therefore anyone with a mind set that way can pick holes, and dogmatic enforcement without common sense can create unworkable contradiction.

One suspects that the limit of absurdity in the application of law is not far off.
Click to expand...
To clarify, my reply, re. the UK Constitution (that there isn't one and that, mostly, the Government can make it up as it goes along), was purely with regard to the nonsense being put out by the 'Frrmen, chappies. It's been that way for a long time and, by and large, The British system mostly hangs together by common consent, a sense of fairness and by adherence to the law. Stop doing those thing and yes, pretty soon, it will all fall apart.

With regard to a society held together by consensus and a sense of fairness, bloggers, by and large, probably have a duty not to bullshit their readers, or viewers, with possible malicious intent. Telling lots of individuals, with really bad social skills, no empathy, a sense of grievance and the idea that the rest of the World owes them a living, that they are quite right, they can do what the like and that the Sun shines out of their individual arses, is probably not responsible blogging.

There's a definite sort of blogger who seems to think that their output, provided it's more, or less plausible, no matter how poisonous and potentially damaging, is consequence free. There's always the chance of their influencing really weak minded types, with only the most tenuous links with reality, who'll take the nonsense too far. Too many of that sort about these days.
 
Cochise said:
Brits are subjects of the Crown.
Click to expand...

Just thinking out of the box - when do they become subjects of the Crown? At birth? At conception? When they can understand what the concept means? How does this actually square up with the concepts of human rights?
Click to expand...

I often wonder this - there is a point of no consent in our contract with the state which we are born into - we never get the chance to choose whether we've opted into the system or not. Hard to imagine it any other way though I guess. I've been told to read The Social Contract but haven't managed it yet.
 
The Contractarians (Hume, Lock, Rosseau et al.) weren't really pretending that there really was a social contract, but rather putting forth various reasons and justifications as to why a rational individual would accept one anyway; that is, how man in society actually improves his lot/freedom/self by stepping beyond the (apparent) unfettered liberty of the state of nature.

The Social Contract has the virtue of being short! But, with all the best intentions in the world, it sets the groundwork for totalitarian states and tyranny.

Isaiah Berlin on Rosseau is scintillating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF_f_ziNH_I
 
gncxx said:
Better watch what you say - apparently Noel trawls the internet seeking comments about himself and if you've criticised him you go on his "list". I think Bruno Brookes used to do this too.
Click to expand...

I fear BB did it to check whether anyone knew he was still alive!
 
There is a British Constitution, you know. They used to teach it in school when I was growing up. Pity I didn't take the subject, but I was mates with a lad who wanted to be a diplomat (he was brilliant at languages) and did take it. Obviously its not in one document, but several, including the Magna Carta. Governments since Thatchers on seem to have simply ignored it.

Unfortunately, it is a dangerous world. People who are unable to evaluate arguments are indeed in peril of overreaction, but that isn't the fault of the person proposing the argument.

Far better to give people a proper education in the first place so they are properly equipped to evaluate arguments and do some research and verifcation for themselves. Our Grammar schools used to do that - at least mine did - and you'd have thought it would have been much more widespread by now. Instead we seem to actively discourage people going out and finding out for themselves - I don't suppose anyone these days would send a 14 year old round to the municipal library to research a contentious point the way my History teacher did - _and_ he wanted me to come back with a minimum of two supporting and two contrary views, with quotes. (The whole story is too long to go into here)
 
At which point, you have to wonder when they will decide to start buying up an arsenal, so that they can take out that shopping centre, where they once had a disagreement with security, about whether their position was one of legitimate property rights, or shoplifting.........
Click to expand...

Its already been done: [problem site]http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/[problem site]

:(


Edit: fixed quote tags. Disabled direct link & added warning. P_M
 
FelixAntonius said:
At which point, you have to wonder when they will decide to start buying up an arsenal, so that they can take out that shopping centre, where they once had a disagreement with security, about whether their position was one of legitimate property rights, or shoplifting.........
Click to expand...

Its already been done: [problem site]http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/[problem site]

:(
Click to expand...

Yeah, plans how to construct a sub-machinegun at home.

Downloading the plans provided there is not a good idea. It is very likely under surveillance by the police and/or other security agencies. Trying to explain that your interest was purely academic may be a tad time consuming.

Edit: Fixed quote tags. Disabled direct link. Added warning. P_M
 
Yeah, that's why I didn't click on that link. Alarm bells went off in my mind.
 
I've disabled that link. It's a dodgy one, alright. Sorry Felix & Ramon.

Strictly, 'caveat emptor', folks. No idea where that site has been, or what one might catch.

P_M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top