Freemen on the Land

[Laurens]

I was introduced to this concept at work when a colleague mentioned it.

The basic premise seems to be that statutes and acts require consent and therefore are inapplicable to those who do not give their consent. These "Freemen" claim that the law they operate under is common law. This is generally used as an excuse not to pay taxes, parking fines, car insurance etc. It's worth noting that to my knowledge nobody who pulls this shit in court has ever had the judge say "yeah you know what, statutes don't apply to you, you're free to go". Most often these people end up in a worse position than if they had just paid their fines and whatnot, because they will often get slapped with contempt of court too.

I don't get it really. Obviously I can see the appeal of something that apparently allows you to get out of paying your council tax, but I don't understand how people so readily accept it without question. Perhaps schools need to teach Law at least at a basic level so that we aren't so easily fooled by pseudo-legal bollocks?

Even if it were true, surely a prerequisite for using roads---which are build and maintained using road tax---is that you agree to pay your road tax, in other words you consent to the statutes. Surely the converse of being a Freeman is that you do not get to use the NHS, or have your bins taken out, get income support, or have the police protect you? I doubt many of these people truly live without these benefits. In any case doesn't being a citizen require that you accept the laws of that country?

You can read a bit more about them here and here.

I did do some research on youtube, but mostly I get videos of unemployed people being rude to bailiffs and wasting police time. I suggest its not worth your time looking there.

Anyway I figured this would be an interesting topic.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In America, there appears to be a idea amongst the right-wing that citizens are individuals who have the right to ignore things they don't like - like taxes, etc.

However, when you declare yourself to be a "citizen", you're declaring yourself to be a "member of a community".

A community is intrinsic to the concept of citizen.

This means that a citizen - by definition - isn't a individual.

Since you are a member of a community, you are bound by the laws of that community - in breaking the law, you are saying that these laws don't apply to you, you are placing yourself outside the law - rendering yourself an outlaw.

Your comment regarding those who behave like this - not paying taxes, etc - not being eligible for the NHS, etc, reminds me of Kent Hovind's defence in his fraud trial, where he claimed that he didn't have to pay taxes because everything belonged to God. From what I'd read at the time, the judge asked him - as a Christian - did he obey what Jesus said, when Hovind answered "yes", the judge reminded him of the saying: "Render unto God what is God's, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"! Thus he was found guilty of tax fraud.

I'd have loved to have seen Hovind's face.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Heh, I love it when they claim that US courts don't apply to them because of the gold trimming used on flags within the building, which signifies it is under the jurisdiction of Maritime Admiralty law.

If you're looking for a true believer to check out, I believe Jordan Maxwell articulates and encapsulates the ideas pretty well.

He also has some weird ideas about etymology and symbolism. Also, he was abducted by aliens as a boy.

 

[Laurens]

I just found this on the JREF forums http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155358

The point where he repeatedly gets asked "what would happen if I didn't pay my council tax and used this argument in court?" only for it to get ignored reminded me of some debates I've seen with creationists.

 

[ldmitruk]

We have these nutcases in Canada also. Here in Alberta a judge blasted the movement a couple of years ago. This bulletin from the B.C. Law Society is an interesting read on how lawyers and notaries should be careful when dealing with them.

Then we had this incident last fall in Calgary. Which resulted in this response from judge.

In general they're a bunch of loons who think they're above the law.

Edited to fix links

 

[Laurens]

We have these nutcases in Canada also. Here in Alberta a judge blasted the movement a couple of years ago. Thisbulletinfrom the B.C. Law Society is an interesting read on how lawyers and notaries should be careful when dealing with them.

Then we had this incident last fall in Calgary. Which resulted in this response from judge.

In general they're a bunch of loons who think they're above the law.

Those first two links aren't working for me unfortunately.

I'm curious to know how these people explain their spectacular failings in court to their followers. As I said previously they will often get penalized more than they would have had they not pulled this Freeman bollocks.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Is there any difference between this and libertarianism?

Heh, I love it when they claim that US courts don't apply to them because of the gold trimming used on flags within the building, which signifies it is under the jurisdiction of Maritime Admiralty law.

I saw an episode of King of the Hill, wherein Dale Gribble made that argument.

 

[Laurens]

Is there any difference between this and libertarianism?

I think there is some overlap there yes.

However it also seems to be used by anarchists, and hippy types. Not to mention those who just perceive themselves to be above the law and want to make a nuisance out of themselves.

 

[Prolescum]

Agreed. It seems to have permeated several sub-cultures with an anti-authority bent.

We are weird creatures for sure.

 

[malicious_bloke]

I actually know someone who thinks this. And he got prosecuted for non-payment of council tax.

I'm pretty sure he's paying it back now once he realised the magic Freemen words of power don't work in an actual court.

Someone really needs to clue these numpties into two very simple things:

1. Statute law supercedes common law where the two conflict (for example English common law apparently allows for trial by combat. This...has since been amended by the body of statute law that's arisen since)

2. The idea that statutes are some voluntary agreement you can decline to enter into is just something fished whole-cloth from the nether regions of an idiot with no idea of how the legal system functions. The entire concept is laughable.