I’ve been looking into the Freeman movement, ever since I found Captian Rantys blog early last year. (If you’ve not read the Captains work, shame on you. Go and read it all.)
I’ll have to admit, I was never really taken by the concept. Sometimes it’s explained in terms that make so much sense you have to believe it, other times it’s sold in the same way as a pyramid marketing scheme.
I’ve done my best to find out as much information as possible, I mean what is there to loose. If it turns out that all this is right then it could be huge.
Anyway, my quest for research has not gone well. Oh, I’ve found out how it works, there is a lot of info out there in cyberspace and plenty of videos on Youtube. What I have not been able to find out is that it does work.
I have read countless claims about Freemen winning cases in court, but none of them backed up by any proof. I have also watched countless videos on Youtube that claim to be Freemen winning to a certain degree, but never are. They have cases adjourned, they make judges walk out or call a recess, they get themselves chucked out of courts by bailiffs but I have not seen one clip where a judge says the words, “Case dismissed” or “Not guilty”. In every instance I have seen, the case has only been paused, ready to finish later, probably with the defendant being found guilty.
I saw one video where a chap in Canada has been stopped for having no insurance. He gives two coppers some information to read and a narrator tells us about the common law right to free use of the highways. Eventually a copper approaches the bloke and says, “To drive on a public highway, you need insurance.”
The video ends and the narrator says, “No. You do not”. We never find out what happened to the driver.
In another video, a chap gets his case adjourned and apparently the judge gives his verdict in writing by letter. And the end of the clip we see the chap opening a letter and telling us he won.
I’ve been inundated with information and clips of half trials, but nothing bordering on proof.
Imagine my delight when told that proof was finally here.
Roger Hayes, who heads up the British Constitution Group, has made legal history.
You have heard me banging on about legal fictions, and that “persons” are defined in law dictionaries as “corporations” and not men/women of flesh and blood. I have oft repeated that it is vital to separate the two, particularly if you transgress a statute and end up in a court-room.
Roger decided to not pay his council tax and see where it all ended up. The result is pretty stupendous. He got a judge to agree that he Roger Hayes, the man, was not MR ROGER HAYES, a corporation defined in law.
That sentence in bold is the crux of it. So how did he get this admission?
So what does all that mean? To a Freeman, it means the judge has just acknowledged the existence of the legal fiction; something that will have a huge significance for all of us. Me; I see an exasperated judge who has been made to trip up and say something that he certainly never intended to mean what it was taken to mean.
I do not see the proof.
I do see a huge flaw in the freeman movement. The unarmed and powerless person is trying to tell the man with the gun that what he is doing in against the law.
The man doesn’t care what you say. He makes the laws and he has the gun.
The man with the gun has been making laws for a long time now. Even if the Freeman can prove that these laws are unlawful, so to speak, he doesn’t care because he still has a gun.
The Captain defends the Freeman philosophy here some of which I’ve pinched to try and make my own sense of it below:
Like many others, I contend that we have a legal fiction or artificial construct or a corporation or, if you prefer, a trade name. I have also come to believe that it is vital to have one. It is illogical, and impossible, to engage in commerce without one. Commerce is based on contracts. Contracts need certain elements to make them enforceable in law. One of these is “Full disclosure”. That makes sense because if both parties are unaware of the finer details, the contract is unfair and unenforceable. Are we all in agreement on that?
No. Corporations have these identities, individuals do not. When you engage in commerce with a company, you engage with an entity rather than a person.
Individuals can engage in commerce without the need for a legal entity.
A contract is made between one or more individuals or corporations with mutual consent and to protect the interests of all parties. When a council sends you a tax demand there is no contract, neither between yourself or your “legal fiction”. The council is not seeking mutual consent, they are seeking acquiescence.
If we were to insist that a contract had to exist somewhere, the state could simply say that the contract is between the state and the people who voted to allow them to take taxes and make laws. They don’t say this because they are not seeking contractual agreement. In the eyes of the state and the law, they exist outside such requirements, because as individuals, if contracts between state and person were necessary we would be able to opt out of any statute we don’t like and the rule of law would collapse.
I am not yet in a battle with the council over council tax. I am frying other fish, for now. My bugbear, is that all taxation is illegal and unlawful. It needn’t be, of course, but the fact is that the set-up today is all the way wrong.
I’ve said this before but I may as well repeat it. The way our legislation is made is like so:
1. An MP tables a Bill…
2. …the House of Commons debates it, if they like it, they send it onwards…
3. …to the House of Lords. There may be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between the two houses, a change here or there in the wording…
4. …but when all are happy, it goes to queenie for her autograph…
5. …and alakazam! we have a new piece of legislation.
All of this is fine. It makes sense. Three separate entities have had the opportunity to look at, examine, cogitate, and spit out a new Act. All well and good.
Except that the Parliament Act of 1911 said that the HoC and the HoL does not need queenies autograph. It is assumed, the Act says. They based this assumption on the lie that no monarch had refused to give Assent in the past. Several did, several times. Now, we either make “law” the way I described above, or we don’t. If we don’t, then we surely need to be told, or preferably, hold a referendum on the way our legislation is brought into being? Until that happens, and whilst politicians are churning out legislation, including ALL legislation concerning taxation, I am happy to ignore it. Lawfully.
The Act of 1911 may be based on assumed consent, but what it really boils down to the the lack of need for consent. When Britain was a Monarchy we were ruled by one person, a king or a queen. A single hereditary dictator, not a good state of affairs.
We are now a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament is voted for by the general public and has a layer of oversight in the House of Lords, but we still seem to have this figurehead in the role of king or queen who still has absolute overall say in legislature.
A democracy has no place for a hereditary monarch. The Parliament Act of 1911 effectively did away with with the monarch, leaving the position in name only.
Now the laws are made by MPs who were voted in by the populace. The fact that they are making the wrong laws is another story.
Next, the Labour government in 1999 passed a vile piece of legislation called the House of Lords Act. This act said that hereditary peers could not take their seats despite having Letters Patent. (This Act caused the Barons Committee to be formed in 2001 and Article 61 of the Magna Carta was invoked).
So, parliament deliberately weakened the House of Lords’ standing.
This is a different matter. Where the Parliament act of 1911 sought to transfer full powers to the elected parliament rather than a hereditary figurehead, The House of Lords act sought to remove all oversight from Parliament. A benign government would be able to function under the House of Lords, but a corrupt one, like Labour would not.
Which, when viewed with a clear head means that everything pumped out by parliament since 1911 is……mince. However well-meaning.
I would be happy to agree that everything that comes out of Parliament in mince, but not for the reason that it hasn’t been signed off by the Queen.
I’ll finish with this thought:
If parliament can (and did) dilute the monarchs’ power of assent, if parliament can (and did) dilute those who use decades of experience to help us to enact good legislation, why would it not fool us over something as simple (or horribly complex) as a legal fiction?
And I’ll offer this one:
Would a Parliament that has the unchallenged power to dilute the Monarchs power of assent and dilute the power of the House of Lords, really give a shit about legal fictions?
Millions of people depend on the state. Whose fault that is, is a separate debate, but I have decided that the state is guilty of avarice, stupidity, and duplicity. It is for those reasons alone that I fight my fight. Using their very own rules it is possible to step aside, and say, “You’ve had all you’re getting from me. From here on in, I want to keep as much of my sweat equity as I can”.
The fight is the good and correct one. The methods escape me. Using their very own rules has produced no quantifiable results so far. It has however, produced a movement of people who are often regarded as quite daft. (No offence, it’s just what I’ve read on’t interweb)
The Freeman movement uses the concept of common law to fight it’s position in court. Common law preceding statue law is created by judges and courts. By asserting a right to by tried under common law, you can’t be pursued for breaching the many petty statutes on the books that were created by governments.
Magistrates and judges never recognise this so called right to be judged under common law. A judge sees themselves as a person responsible to all law, no matter who wrote it. That’s how a lot of these trials on Youtube end up adjourned.
As I see it however, it would only take one judge to accept the right to be tried under common law to bring an end to the whole idea, not to strengthen it.
Common law is created by precedents. A judge rules in one case and all similar, following cases are subject to the same judgement. When a case is unique and is ruled on the first time, this is the precedent to which all similar cases in the future follow.
Hence, in a council tax case, for example, a judge would first have to accept the defendants right to be tried under common law, and secondly, judge that they are still liable to pay their council tax.
From that point forward, all cases involving council tax under common law would follow suite.
If the movement exists; if the movement has strength in numbers, why the legal shanannigans and fancy buzz words?. The Government is corrupt and bloated, that is self evident.
If you have had enough of council tax, for example, because it is taken by force and wasted by the councils, why look to some legal nuances dating back to the dark ages that are difficult to prove? If there is enough like minded people, why not just take direct action?
Sir Olly suggests we ‘Starve the Beast’.
I’m sure that’s something we can all get on board with, including the Freeman movement. With strength in numbers it could easily work. If 10.000 people missed one council tax direct debit, that’s circa 1million pounds lost to local councils in a day.
Can the Freeman movement work as is? I would like to think so, but in the meantime there is enough of us who feel our money is being wasted. Why can’t we all just get together and say no.
Personally I would rather be up in court for non payment of council tax with a few hundred people behind me doing the same thing than I would getting up there with my only defence being the Magna Carta, a document we often look to but has almost completely been repealed by acts of parliament:
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta which are still on statute are
* Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.
* Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the “ancient liberties” of the City of London.
* Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.
Not much left is there? Apart from ourselves.