Freemen on the land

For freemen in the feudal system, see Serfdom#Freemen.

"Freemen-on-the-land" are a loose group of individuals with the belief that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law".[1] This belief has been described as a conspiracy theory.[2] Freemen are active in English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

In the Canadian court case Meads v. Meads, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke used the phrase "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) to describe the techniques and arguments used by freemen in court[3] describing them as frivolous and vexatious.[4][5][6] There is no recorded instance of freeman tactics being upheld by a legal verdict;[7] in refuting one by one each of the arguments used by Meads, Rooke concluded that "a decade of reported cases, many of which he refers to in his ruling, have failed to prove a single concept advanced by OPCA litigants."[8]

Freemen-on-the-land are also called "Freemen-of-the-land" and the "Freemen movement". They may be an offshoot of the Sovereign Citizen movement.[9][10] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies sovereign citizen extremists as domestic terrorists, and states that these groups may refer to themselves as "freemen".[11]

Beliefs

"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence – their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by the individual's birth certificate; some freemen claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this "strawman" is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name – for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".[12]

Many "Freemen" beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of admiralty or maritime law, which the Freemen claim governs the commercial world. These beliefs stem from fringe interpretations of various nautical-sounding words, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a "ship", the court's occupants as "passengers" and may claim that those leaving are "men overboard".[12]

Freemen will try to claim common law (as opposed to admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking "Do you have a claim against me?" This, they contend, removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, so that proceedings would have to go forward according to their version of common law. This procedure has never been used successfully.[7][12]

Freemen often will not accept legal representation; they believe that to do so would mean contracting with the state. They believe that the United Kingdom and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and are therefore under admiralty law. They believe that since the abolition of the gold standard, UK currency is backed not by gold but by the people (or the legal fiction of their persons). They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation. Therefore, a court is a place of business, and a summons is an invitation to discuss the matter at hand, with no powers to require attendance or compliance.[12] They may believe that the government controls secret bank accounts in their name as part of this theory, which may be accessed to pay off debts.

None of the beliefs held by Freemen have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.[7][12] An English solicitor, writing anonymously, commented:[13]

[This] strategy might give lenders pause, of course, because litigating against awkward characters isn't much fun. But given how flimsy the freeman legal arguments are, the pause needn't be long. I've seen a transcript of a hearing in which a debtor tried to rely on the freeman defence. It was over as soon as the judge asked (I can imagine the withering tone), "Are you planning to persist in this defence, Mr Jones?"

Contracts

Freemen believe that since they exist in a common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount and mandatory, the people in the government and courts are not above the law, and that government and court personnel therefore must obtain the consent of the governed. Freemen believe that those government employees who do not obtain consent of the governed have abandoned the rule of law. They believe this consent is routinely secured by way of people submitting applications and through acts of registration. They believe the public servants have deceived the population into abandoning their status as Freemen in exchange for the status of a 'child of the province' or 'ward of the state' allowing those children to collect benefits such as welfare, unemployment insurance, and pension plans or old age security.

Freemen believe that the government has to establish "joinder" to link oneself and one's legal person. If one is asked whether one is “John Smith” and one says that is so, one has established joinder and connected the physical and human persons. The next step is to obtain consent. Statutes are merely invitations to enter a contract, and are only legally enforceable if one enters into the contract consensually. Otherwise, statute laws are not applicable. Freemen believe that the government is constantly trying to trick people into entering into a contract with them, so they often return bills, notices, summons and so on with the message "No contract—return to sender".[12]

A "notice of understanding and intent and claim of right" is a document used by Freemen to declare their sovereignty. The signed document, often notarised, is sent to the Queen and possibly other authorities such as the Prime Minister and police chiefs. It usually begins with the words "Whereas it is my understanding" and goes on to state their understanding of the law and their lack of consent to it.[12]

The British publication Benchmark has asserted that Freemen's beliefs are based on misunderstandings and wishful thinking and have not been successful in court.[12]

Court cases


The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.[6] [emphasis in original]

Advice to professionals

Lawyers and notaries in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, have been warned by their professional bodies about dealing with freemen as clients.[21] In particular, lawyers were advised to be careful not to stamp or notarise the pseudo-legal documents that freemen typically use, so as not to create a perception of authority for such documents.[22]

American police, both speaking personally and as official guidance, have provided advice to law enforcement on dealing with the similar sovereign citizen movement. These have noted the need for caution after a case in which two policemen were murdered by a sovereign citizen during a traffic stop.[23][24]

See also

References

As of this edit, this article uses content from "Freeman on the land", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed.

  1. ↑ CBC (29 February 2012). "Freemen movement captures Canadian police attention". CBC News.
  2. ↑ Wagner, Adam. "Freemen of the dangerous nonsense". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
  3. 1 2 Wittmeier, B (2012-09-27). "Edmonton divorce case prompts justice to dissect "pseudolegal" arguments". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 9 Oct 2012.
  4. ↑ University of Calgary Faculty of Law
  5. ↑ Duhaime
  6. 1 2 Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
  7. 1 2 3 The Guardian
  8. ↑ Canadian Lawyer magazine
  9. ↑ School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (September 2012), A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens (PDF), archived from the original (pdf) on July 5, 2015, retrieved July 5, 2015
  10. ↑ School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (September 2012), A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens (PDF), archived from the original (pdf) on May 3, 2015, retrieved July 5, 2015
  11. ↑ "Sovereign Citizens A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement". Domestic Terrorism. Federal Bureau of Investigation. September 11, 2011. Archived from the original on December 10, 2011. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Nonsense or loophole?", Benchmark, Issue 57, February 2012, p 18
  13. ↑ Anonymous (name withheld by request; a solicitor of England and Wales; wrote with permission pseudonymously as "Legal Bizzle"). "The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
  14. ↑ "Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and Elizabeth Watson and Victoria Haigh", Royal Courts of Justice, 22 August 2011, [2011] 3 FCR 422, [2011] Fam Law 1194, [2011] EWHC B15 (Fam)
    "‘Investigator’ jailed for report as court contempt compromised well-being of child", The Star (Sheffield), 24 August 2011
  15. ↑ David Bale, "Norfolk tax dodger arrested... after writing to Queen", Norwich Evening News, 3 December 2010
  16. ↑ "'Bobby of the family Sludds' may be jailed", Wexford People, 14 September 2011
  17. ↑ Vik Kirsch, "Security tight as suspects in Guelph break-in case appear in bail court", Guelph Mercury, 5 March 2012
  18. ↑ "Cannabis-grower tried to call Queen and Prime Minister as witnesses in 'bizarre' trial", Hull Daily Mail, 16 August 2012
  19. ↑ "Magna Carta beliefs lead to 22 days jail for Pembrokeshire businessman who refused 'to be governed'", Western Telegraph, 7 September 2012
  20. ↑ North East Lincolnshire Council, "Council tax evader jailed for 30 days"
  21. ↑ "Law Society of Alberta issues warning to lawyers after bizarre Calgary 'Freeman on the Land" case resolved", Calgary Sun, 28 September 2013
  22. ↑ The Law Society of British Columbia: Practice Tips: The Freeman-on-the-Land movement
  23. ↑ Finch & Flowers. "Sovereign Citizens: A Clear and Present Danger". Police Magazine. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
  24. ↑ Greenberg, Moe. "10 tips and tactics for investigating Sovereign Citizens". PoliceOne. Retrieved 20 June 2015.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, March 21, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.