• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Freemen On The Land / Lawful Rebellion

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.
Click to expand...

I think they they would. I think they'd tell you it's utter bobbins.

There was an almost identical movement in early 90s New York, which involved city employees sending meaningless legalese to their payroll departments in an attempt to avoid paying tax. It failed utterly, just as the "freeman on the land" nonsense is laughed out of any court where it is presented.

It taps into a basic human desire to have magic words which, when said, will make a problem go away. Unfortunately reciting this crap to a court will have as much effect as saying "abravadabra" or "open sesame".
 
Quake42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think they they would. I think they'd tell you it's utter bobbins.
Click to expand...
Of course they will say it's utter bobbins, because "they are defending the system they are part of". ;) It makes the argument self enclosed.
 
I'm actually not sure where the basis of the legal system in this country stands at the moment. A lot of law has been passed in the last 40 years that would appear to be, apparently, in contradiction of what little I know about the constitution, and on to that has been grafted European law and other alien - in the sense of based on different assumptions, I don't mean imposed by Venusians - concepts.

As I mentioned earlier, successive governments (Heath, Thatcher, then just about everyone since) have behaved as if there was no constitution and presumably one could challenge some of their actions on that basis.

But I wouldn't go to a lawyer to ask about it, because it is contradictions of that type which form the most lucrative part of their already very lucrative practice.
 
I actually heard someone - on a station platform on Saturday - haranguing a group of people about the 'lawful rebellion' situation. He was claiming that it was to do with the treaty of Nice and a judgement in the House of Lords - and that it was the real reason that Tony Blair had tried to reform / abolish the House of Lords.

In summary, the judgement was supposed to be that the Queen had exceeded her powers in signing the Treaty, and until that situation was resolved anything further signed by her would not be law.

Has anyone got any links to a real discussion of this, or is it just a fantasy?
 
OK, I read through this never having heard Freeman of the land. What I gathered reading the posts here is that there are some loonies out there that deserve to be called mad, crazy, stupid, naive etc etc.
The idea seems to be rubbish and everyone who believes in it is very stupid indeed.

Why is there so much hostility I'd like to ask?
After this thread I read about it a little more because I was intrigued and whilst legislative they may not stand a chance in court, I think that the whole idea isn't all too bad [remember I am a noob in this field and only read a little bit].

I have always said that there are far too many laws and that most things can be covered by a handful of logic laws. Instead there is a kind of micromanagement going on by having so many laws that any normal person would never be able to know them all. A lot of which are only passed because of greed by large companies.

So having fewer laws seems good to me.
Furthermore, living in a society where people rely on each other it is only fair to contribute by tax unless of course the tax you pay doesn't go anywhere that is for the greater good but a lot of it into the pockets of those that can grab some.

However if you could waver any help by others and live only by your own means [eating off your own land, your animals etc, never ask Police or doctors and never use public transport and so on] I believe that you should be able to 'opt out' of society legally if you do not do any harm. There is currently no way to do so. We are all owned by the government of the land we live in and HAVE to live by all those laws even if they don't make much sense.

So I ask again [and it is purely out of interest] why everyone here calls these people loonies and their idea BS and so on? Whilst it is by no means realistic to me it seems not such a bad thing to believe.
Did I miss something?
Sorry for not getting it.
 
I think the consensus is that they are dreamers and we are all serfs.

At least they have dreams, I grant you. :(
 
JamesWhitehead said:
I think the consensus is that they are dreamers and we are all serfs.

At least they have dreams, I grant you. :(
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. Just being dreamers still doesn't make want to rubbish them though...that's where I got confused. I thought they were dangerous or terrorists or worse. :D
 
So I ask again [and it is purely out of interest] why everyone here calls these people loonies and their idea BS and so on? Whilst it is by no means realistic to me it seems not such a bad thing to believe.
Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

The "Freeman on the land" posse are not analogous to the US militia/survivalist movement. By and large they're not wanting to opt out of society and live off the land. Rather they seek magic words by which they can make legal problems, notably debts and civil judgements, disappear. They do this by picking and choosing bits of maritime/admirality law and claiming, as has been pointed out already, that a courtroom is a ship.

In other words it's a particuarly odd form of magical thinking, and I think that is why everyone calls them loonies with BS ideas.
 
I understand that, sort of. But I don't think that the idea in itself isn't actually as mad as it is made out to be here. The truth is neither to be a complacent conformist, nor someone who is trying to dodge taxes for the sake of it; but somewhere in the middle.
As I said before, I would love to 'opt out' any social contract and I would still not become a criminal because I want to get along with people but I have never signed up to all these nitty gritty laws that are made left right and centre.
Yet I am not allowed to opt out. I have sold my body to the government to do as they see fit [without being too obvious about it] since birth.
Anyone who find something wrong with that gets a thumbs up IMO.

I also don't think that all people who take a liking to the idea are seriously taking it all the way [there may be some but not all]. Why not actually find out how right [or wrong] they really are, instead of calling them names?
I get the feeling that some here are jealous that there are people who may have found something worthwhile.

I won't suddenly join the movement but I am intrigued as it makes good sense here and there. So what if some take it further? It always takes people like that to make others aware.
I also don't understand why they are supposed to have magical thinking and magical words to make something that isn't?
In my view they at least believe something that may make sense, compared to ALL religions for example.

What if people want to live like that? How are they supposed to go about it? There is no way because their body and life are not theirs. As most of here have pointed out. If someone wants to be a Freeman OTL there is no way to do it 'above board'. Yet other people are allowed to wear ridiculous clothing, stop work in order to speak to an invisible man in the sky, have the right to cut the genitals of infants and so on and are protected to do so.
Why can't people be non-criminals yet 'opt out ' of the farce that is our system?

I tell you why. First they'd be insulted and secondly too many would follow and that would not go down too well with the ruling elite or those that are stuck in a rut and have wasted their lives working for others.

I still can't see why the FOTL people can be insulted as if they were morons? As I said, jealousy seems to play a big part from what I have read here.
 
What if people want to live like that? How are they supposed to go about it? There is no way because their body and life are not theirs. As most of here have pointed out. If someone wants to be a Freeman OTL there is no way to do it 'above board'. Yet other people are allowed to wear ridiculous clothing, stop work in order to speak to an invisible man in the sky, have the right to cut the genitals of infants and so on and are protected to do so.
Why can't people be non-criminals yet 'opt out ' of the farce that is our system?
Click to expand...

Because, again, the Freemen on the Land are not free spirits trying to escape from "the system". By and large they have signed contracts freely (typically for loans or other financial commitments) and are now trying to get out of fulfilling their side of the bargain by reciting meaningless magic words.
 
I've had to deal with one in the context of a law firm.

He charges approximately $1,000,000 for every "unlawful" use of the trademarked and copyrighted name of his strawman. Which he believes can be trademarked and copyrighted simply by putting TM and (C) after every use of his name. He has attempted to sue GoDaddy for his name appearing on a website that was nothing to do with them because it mentioned his name in connection with a public news story.

He also claims that the UN Secretary General and Hilary Clinton regularly come round his house for dinner and to ask his advice on world affairs.

He is also involved in massive fraud. The news story was the story of his arrest and subsequent bail jump.

They are bonkers, and can be legitimately called bonkers, because they are bonkers. As has been pointed out, they are not idealists trying to find a way to live free from interference, and to opt out of a society from which they take nothing, so don't see why they should be governed by it.

They rack up debts, use public services, enter into contracts, then renege on repayments by claiming that they cannot be held legally accountable. They want all the rights of citizenship and none of the responsibilities.

I have yet to encounter any of the movement who aren't using it to get out of some naughty shit they have done, or to commit some further naughty shit.

Their (ab)use of maritime law to justify their delusional interpretation of the law is particularly irksome.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Then, the American Tea Party movement are dreamers, too.
Click to expand...
But not the nice, happy kind.
 
lawofnations said:
I've had to deal with one in the context of a law firm.


I have yet to encounter any of the movement who aren't using it to get out of some naughty shit they have done, or to commit some further naughty shit.

Their (ab)use of maritime law to justify their delusional interpretation of the law is particularly irksome.
Click to expand...


So they are doing what every lawyer/solicitor in the world is doing for their clients?


Apart from that, yeah I know what you are all saying, I was just playing devils advocate [because I like doing that]. But still, I know people who trick the system by other means. It seems that some people will just do that...play the system. If it is not one way, then it is another.

Having said that, I still maintain that I like the idea if done properly. The reason some misuse it is because they can. Shame really.
 
Having said that, I still maintain that I like the idea if done properly
Click to expand...

What idea do you like though? Living off the grid, growing your own food and not using any public services? Each to their own, but the FOTL are NOT promoting this. They are promoting a scam which involves pointless attempts to avoid their responsibilities via bizarre misreadings of the law.
 
So OK, how about the lawful rebellion bit? My interest in it stems from the fact that I am aware the Queen has certain duties under the UK constitution, one of which is, er, safeguarding the constitution. And arguably some of the things she has been asked to sign during her reign contradict the British Constitution. I don't blame her for this - she is in an impossible situation if it comes to rejecting something that is presented to her by a lawfully elected government - but nevertheless I would be interested in any actions taken to try and pursue the point.

I am not imagining that whatever happens it will mean that I don't have to pay tax.
 
I couldn't tell from the conversation whether the chap was pro or anti-EU, his point was that the action was unconstitutional and hence all laws passed since were invalid because the country is in a state of lawful rebellion as a result.

It is from this point, apparently, that the non-tax-payer fraternity get some of their justification, but it is the constitutional point that interests me, because whether or not the chap on the station was pro-or anti, I am unhappy with the idea that our constitution can be abolished/ignored so easily. It has reached the point that most people don't even realise we have a constitution.
 
garrick92 said:
I realise that posting three times on the trot makes me look a bit mental, but it can't be helped.

Just found a blog that sets out the Treaty of Nice controversy very clearly. Blimey, it's arcane.

But it appears that it's too late, the Nice Treaty was ratified by the UK some years ago.

So I suppose your man is technically correct, we are (or should be) in a state of lawful rebellion.

I wonder what would happen if you tried to base any legal action on it?
Click to expand...

I imagine you'd cost yourself a lot of money to no purpose. My interest is merely in showing our 'honest, rule-of-law' type politicians - of all parties - up for the utter hypocrites they really are, ready to ignore any law, even the constitution, if it suits their purpose. Possibly if enough people did this the electorate would sit up and take notice, but I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks very much for the link, don't know why I didn't find that myself, but I didn't. That is exactly what the man on the station was talking about.
 
Apparently this is in Canada as well. Visit the link to read more.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...signal-clampdown-on-anti-government-movement/

"After 30 years and six children, Dennis Larry Meads split up with his wife two years ago. When the divorce went to court in Edmonton in June, Mr. Meads tried something the judge would call “bluntly idiotic.”

He argued that “man’s law” did not apply to him. He claimed the judge only had jurisdiction at sea, not on land. He said the Bank of Canada kept a secret account in his name.

“I am a freeman on the land,” he said.

The judge, John Rooke, had heard it all before. Across the country, courts and police had been dealing with Canadians like Mr. Meads who thought they could evade taxes, parking fines and spousal support payments by spouting lines from Freeman on the Land literature"
 
Cochise said:
I couldn't tell from the conversation whether the chap was pro or anti-EU, his point was that the action was unconstitutional and hence all laws passed since were invalid because the country is in a state of lawful rebellion as a result.
Click to expand...

Even if true (and the TL;DR is, it isn't true), one unconstitutional act does not render every single act thereafter unconstitutional! If it were, there would be no laws anywhere. Just think of the number of cases where the government has been found to have acted ultra vires or the US Supreme Court has declared some legislation unconstitutional.

The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament is pretty much unlimited in matters such as entering into treaties, so to speak of the Crown exceeding its constitutional powers in this regard is also legally nonsense.[/u]
 
Dingo667 said:
So they are doing what every lawyer/solicitor in the world is doing for their clients?
Click to expand...

Ooh, that's a pretty low lawyer joke! :lol:

Lawyers tend to work with the law as it exists, rather than claiming the law doesn't exist, or that their clients are somehow outside the law for dubious and/or bullshit reasons!
 
lawofnations said:
Cochise said:
I couldn't tell from the conversation whether the chap was pro or anti-EU, his point was that the action was unconstitutional and hence all laws passed since were invalid because the country is in a state of lawful rebellion as a result.
Click to expand...

Even if true (and the TL;DR is, it isn't true), one unconstitutional act does not render every single act thereafter unconstitutional! If it were, there would be no laws anywhere. Just think of the number of cases where the government has been found to have acted ultra vires or the US Supreme Court has declared some legislation unconstitutional.

The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament is pretty much unlimited in matters such as entering into treaties, so to speak of the Crown exceeding its constitutional powers in this regard is also legally nonsense.[/u]
Click to expand...

All laws passed under the authority of that treaty, of course, not all laws everywhere. The question really hinges on whether the Crown can arbitrarily set aside the constitution on the say-so of Parliament. It only applies to laws or treaties that contravene the constitution, or that are carried out under the authority of such a law. (Fruit of a poisoned tree).

I didn't take British Constitution at school - wish I had now.
 
Possibly a Freeman.

Supporters of a man who stood on a table and shouted in a courtroom at Cork Circuit Court were warned they would be jailed for contempt of court if they tried to film the case against him at Cork District Court yesterday.

The middle-aged man, who had refused to give his name to gardaí, did not answer questions put to him by Judge Leo Malone yesterday and instead asked the judge questions and spoke loudly over the evidence being presented. ...

Judge Malone warned several men pointed out by gardaí sitting in the public seating at Courtroom 1: “You are not allowed to carry out filming in court. If you do I will hold you in contempt and sentence you to prison.” ...

Garda Griffin said that during the call over of the list at Courtroom 7 by Deirdre O’Mahony, county registrar, Lynch shouted and roared and at one stage stood on a table in the court and was arrested by gardaí with the assistance of barristers and court staff who helped to fend off supporters of the accused who became involved in the incident

Lynch was brought back in to court yesterday to be asked if he had any questions for the guard or if he wanted to give evidence. Lynch asked, “Who is addressing me?”

The judge convicted him on the charge of offensive behaviour and refusing to provide his name and address, and fined him €400 and €500 for both offences or 45 days in prison if he failed to pay within three months ...

Garda Griffin said yesterday that he contacted the defendant’s wife who told him she went to work on Monday morning leaving him at home to mind their sick child but that he left the sick child at home alone.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/film-case-and-face-jail-judge-tells-court-306832.html
 
Ginoide's thread on the Italian Flat Earthers reminded me of this one, and also of a web page I bookmarked some time back from the online US law enforcement resource, PoliceOne.com

5 responses to a sovereign citizen at a traffic stop

I would recommend watching the video at the end of the article. At first I thought this was something actually created by the movement as a source of instruction. After watching all the way through, I think not - and although without any editorial comment, it's clear that whoever compiled it realised that allowing the individuals concerned to verbally trip over their own bullshit probably spoke for itself.

You also have to admire the glacial calmness which is clearly required in order to resist blowing some of these nobbers all over their own windscreens .
 
I was doing some legal research a couple of years ago, and one website I looked at seemed quite rational until about two thirds of the way down the page, then it all seemed to go out of the window, and it started going on about the magna carta still being legally binding, and that as a result of this, all laws passed since then are not valid. Or some such illogical cobblers. I closed the page after that.
They can say what they like about contract, or any other area of UK law, but it has exactly the effect it has, regardless of what extremists might wish it meant. The phrase, "It is what it is !" covers it nicely.

I was in correspondence with someone on a legal matter, and after I'd quoted a precedent case and explained how it was relevant to my argument, they suggested I was changing the rules to suit myself. My reply was that only parliament can make and change rules. Judges can interpret them, which is why we have the case law I'd referred to.
 
Sounds like a Freemen action.


A group of about 20 protesters entered Edinburgh Castle on Tuesday evening, claiming to have “seized” the landmark under article 61 of Magna Carta.

Members of the public were evacuated as the demonstrators entered the grounds of the castle without a ticket. Police Scotland said that officers were dealing with the protest. Reports emerged at about 5.45pm of an incident close to the entrance to the Museum of The Royal Regiment for Scotland.

The protesters filmed their protest on Facebook Live. In a 13-minute video, a woman says the castle “belongs to the people” and that they are “taking our power back”. She adds the Scottish people have been “lied to all our lives” and that the “building belongs to us, we have taken the castle back” in an effort to “restore the rule of law”.

A man adds: “Treason’s been going on for that long now, we can’t sit back and let everybody perish under the stupid legislation and fraudulent government tyranny, so let’s just take it all back, not just the castle.”

As police officers appear in the footage, the female protester told officers they were seizing the castle under article 61 of Magna Carta. Magna Carta – signed by King John in 1215 – has never applied in Scotland as it predates the Act of Union.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...IkEsfJo141sbcQIUsXUcszaS1jOvpFvbB-0lTlN5A58Is
 
ramonmercado said:
Sounds like a Freemen action.


A group of about 20 protesters entered Edinburgh Castle on Tuesday evening, claiming to have “seized” the landmark under article 61 of Magna Carta.

Members of the public were evacuated as the demonstrators entered the grounds of the castle without a ticket. Police Scotland said that officers were dealing with the protest. Reports emerged at about 5.45pm of an incident close to the entrance to the Museum of The Royal Regiment for Scotland.

The protesters filmed their protest on Facebook Live. In a 13-minute video, a woman says the castle “belongs to the people” and that they are “taking our power back”. She adds the Scottish people have been “lied to all our lives” and that the “building belongs to us, we have taken the castle back” in an effort to “restore the rule of law”.

A man adds: “Treason’s been going on for that long now, we can’t sit back and let everybody perish under the stupid legislation and fraudulent government tyranny, so let’s just take it all back, not just the castle.”

As police officers appear in the footage, the female protester told officers they were seizing the castle under article 61 of Magna Carta. Magna Carta – signed by King John in 1215 – has never applied in Scotland as it predates the Act of Union.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...IkEsfJo141sbcQIUsXUcszaS1jOvpFvbB-0lTlN5A58Is
Click to expand...


"Hi!" she yelled as police inevitably turned up. "We are free, we are sovereign, this building belongs to the people of the land!"

"Aye, OK," a rather more composed officer responded.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/18/magna_carta_edinburgh_castle/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top