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.
I think you’ve nailed the flaw here. While I admire Hayes’ tenacity – and the idea of a contract has appeal to me as I’m engaged in a dispute over this very issue with my council; albeit the date of payment.
the reality is, that those who write and implement statute law are the ones holding the loaded gun. Long term, I believe the Freeman movement is on a hiding to nothing. While they are a minor inconvenience, they will be tolerated, but if they prove to be too much of a pain, the state will visit its might upon them.
As an aside, statute law is often badly drafted, leading to the precedent principle being used to clarify it. Much of our H&S legislation is underpinned by legal precedent even though it is statute law, not common law.
I can understand the precedent principle being used to make sense of the arse wibble that comes out of Parliament these days, but as I understand it, precedent is what underpins common law. That’s why I beleive it’s a very weak straw to grasp.
What I forgot to mention in the article is that the Freeman Movement not only has to contend with the might of the government but the will of the masses.
If they could legally stop paying council tax, to continue the example, the sheep will not be behind them. Sheep are too scared to stand up to government. Instead of refusing to pay themselves, they will demand that something be done to close the loophole.
It could well be the people rather than the powers that stop this idea dead if it ever begins to gain weight.
it does. That is why it is both simple and effective. It started in Plantagenet times as “the law between men” when the king would have circuit judges ruling on local disputes between individuals and their judgements used to determine subsequent cases of a similar nature. Once a test case has set a precedent, similar cases can be settled out of court, which makes matters both simple and less costly.
That said, sometimes the precedent may well no longer be applicable because of a change of circumstances, attitudes or public opinion. Then a new test case has to overturn that precedent and set a new one. It is a system of law that is not only simple and effective but is organic enough to evolve with changing times.
“…It could well be the people rather than the powers that stop this idea dead if it ever begins to gain weight.”
Spot on! ‘Crabs in a bucket’ syndrome.
I’ve being studying the freeman movement for about a year now. My response to it? Stay well away from it. A lot of people who have gone down the freeman route ended up in a worse position than when they started.
I’ve also noticed that a lot of freeman ‘leaders’ (if I may called than that) show very little proof that they have gotten it to work for themselves. When I questioned them about this, I ended up getting banned on their freeman sites.
It is a scam and like all scams it will have at its core one central theme that has to be either avoided or adopted at all costs. What is it? The notion of ‘contracting’. It you contract with the judge, tough titty, you’ve lost.
Now think about that. A judge can make as many slip ups as be, you on the other hand are only afforded the one. Make that slip up. Bang! You’ve contracted. Game over, heavy fine or jail sentence.
I’ve heard some horror stories of people ending up in jail over trivial matters. In one case a man was prosecuted for not producing his license or insurance cert even though he had them. Went to court, tried the freeman way, annoyed the judge to such an extent that when he was found guilty, was sentenced to 6 months in jail. What was the response of the freeman ‘leaders’? Oh, he contracted with the judge, so too bad.
Have I learned anything good about the freeman movement? Yes, two things.
First up. There are certain people in our society that are delusion and power hungry (ok, I knew about this already). But you really see these traits in freeman ‘leaders’. Their radio programmes are pathetic to listen too. One caller in asked what should he do when police arrive at his doorstep with a warrant for him. The host told him to tell the police that that’s not him (his name) written on the warrant and to immediately leave, as they were on private property. The way the host was speaking to the caller in with his fake anger and holier than thou attitude was pathetic at least and cringe worthy at most. These freeman leaders are a mirror image of the people they rant against.
Second, it has shown me that our system is bloated, complex and corrupted to the core. Now this may sound strange, but that is a good thing. Why? Because you need to learn how to turn the system in on itself in order to stand up for yourself and achieve victory. That is why I’m learning as much as possible about the different acts from power of arrest, to detention and travel in a car etc.
That is the only way. Forget about this freeman BS.
“was sentenced to 6 months in jail.”
That’s pretty harsh. Goes to show how much power they have to ruin your life.
Yep, it was. He had the sentenced scratched only after he apologised, showed the documents and promised never to do it again.
“and promised never to do it again.”
Sounds like something out of Monty Python, the silly bugger
”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”
That pretty much sums it up.
For all the ‘Freemen’ claims of legal victories ,they NEVER actually have any legal victories. To be kind, they are deluding themselves when they talk of their ‘victories’. To be unkind, they are dishonest. Either way, they are achieving exactly nothing except to make genuine campaigners against the bloated State look bad by association.
I just want to see some videos that show the end result of a case. I’m sure that if the theory worked, all the videos on Youtube would not stop before the case is finished.
If they show a video with a Freeman being ejected from court and claim victory, they are being dishonest if that person has to go back to court and is convicted.
These Freemen/Lawful Rebellion people are lunatics, pure and simple. Truthers of course, they sent a letter to every MP in Britain which amongst many other things claims that – the old chestnut – ‘Zionists’ control the media and the NWO (blah Nazi crap blah), and even better that all Common Purpose graduates were selected on the grounds that they have narcisstic personality disorders and furthermore have been subject to brainwashing and *actual mind control techniques* by the EU. This isn’t tinfoil hat territory, this is full on I-really-like-this-jacket-but-the-sleeves-are-much-too-long territory. The only reason they haven’t been nationally exposed and vilified by the media is that they are so utterly ineffectual. Anyone who touches these nazi nutballs with a ten foot pole is asking for trouble down the line.
You may have a point somewhere in there, but it’s lost in an avalanche of ad hominem.
Indeed so – to all; please leave out the ad homs.
Ta.
Apologies, I tend to get rather ranty when faced with ‘Zionists control the media’ types. Godwin doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult leap from that starting point.
It matters not who exactly controls the MSM .. but the content of the MSM is controlled make no mistake.
As for the EU .. when exactly did the British public (the citizens) vote for this farcical political elite and gravy train bleeding us dry ???
Just carry on paying your taxes like a good little serf and remember what you have been taught …. don’t misbehave, don’t question … agree with borg.
Excellent post. I’ve been mildly interested in the Freeman movement for a while, thinking it all sounded overblown. This post nails it very well for me.
Thanks. I’ve been researching it for a while and this post sums up my conclusions, although I will continue to look at it and look for new information.
Unless something very significant happens, this will probably just be for information purposes only though.
I have been following the movement with interest too. I think much of their logic is basically correct.
Parliament is subservient to the charter which created it, it cannot be otherwise, and as such cannot lawfully repeal it or bring in laws that breach it or reorganise itself (eg House of Lords)without at least an equivalent national agreement. So has the Magna Carta been mostly repealed? Even courts have ruled it stands unless a new law specifically and directly cancels it for that law’s specific purpose. Also the Royal oath is indeed broken by membership of the EU and the transfer of power. The creation of statutes without formal discussion or Royal assent is also questionable as such power to delegate has no traditional basis. Those things are not exactly ‘common law’ but constitutional.
Sadly there are two problems.
One is that TPTB cannot and dare not admit to a problem or weakness or allow anyone to take advantage of it, so they won’t.
Secondly the Freeman movement has a poor image. It’s not just seen as eccentric but when the public see people fighting in court by such means as common law it’s almost always over the sorts of issues that ‘nuisance’ minorities argue over (council tax, TV licences). Thus in the minds of the public the freemen are lumped in with squatters, travellers, student protestors, as neer-do-wells out to avoid paying their fair dues to society. That does many of them a disservice and is a great shame but I think it’s how they are often viewed.
Common law however is alive and well in some places. I read today of Sharon Shoesmith’s lawyers complaining her treatment was against “natural justice”, the phrase is often used in legal statements to the press – what’s that if not an alternate name for the idea of fairness under common law?
”Parliament is subservient to the charter which created it”
Parliament was not created by a charter.
Parliament is not legally subservient to any authority, it is a fundamental rule that Parliament is not bound by any previous laws, decisions or agreements. As such, Parliment has the legal right to change, amend, repeal and create law as it wishes.
These facts ma be reprehensible, but they are facts.
And quite right, too. If I recall correctly, the last administration was plotting to do just that – I just don’t recall the relevant issue. Might have been ID cards…
And no real oversight because the House of Lords is effectively a sinecure for the retired party placemen.
“Parliament is not bound by any previous laws, decisions or agreements”
Of course one Parliament cannot creat an act to bind future ones, (although international treaties do exactly that) but Magna Carta is not an act of parliament.
Parliament was not created by Magna Carta.
The institution of Parliament predates the Magna Carta by centuries.
From Angry Exile’s later post “You either love it or you hate it” on May 29, 2011
” … but it’s all so bloody unnecessary if you simply tell your citizens that they’re wholly responsible for what they put in their mouths.”
It may be just a bit of sloppy writing but it contains an essential observation on the relationship between man and state: ‘tell’ and ‘your citizens’. AE doesn’t explain who ‘you’ are, but ‘your’ citizens seem to be explicit possessions of ‘you’, whom or whatsoever that may be.
The Freeman movement or something similar is an essential option if we are to have any freedom at all. If we cannot divorce the state we are in effect the state’s chattels, mere livestock, for the state to do with as it chooses, simply by amending or creating law to achieve its objective. Framework laws which can be amended by statutory instrument by any civil servant make this process administratively easier: the idea becomes the law at the click of a key or the stroke of a pen.
Absent any ability to withdraw oneself from the state’s clutches and we are no more than sheeple. We have no choice in the matter, any more than a cow to be milked, sheep to be shorn or pig to be slaughtered.
If we do not own ourselves, who or what does?
A document? A gaggle of people assembled in a certain place, with or without strange garb? Faceless bureaucrats in a foreign land? Shape shifting aliens from another planet? It hardly matters, save that they have the might to enforce ownership, much as a farmer encourages pigs to slaughter with an electric prod.
We live in the Jungle of the Law. It is a rapidly growing jungle, expanding faster than real jungles are shrinking. So rapidly is it growing that EU law alone is being written faster than a man can read it.
The law holds its own ecosystems, with predators and prey and endless niches occupied by professions evolved to benefit from them. Lawyers specialise in criminal law, civil law, commercial law, health and safety law and endless other laws (which we are all supposed to be intimately acquainted with and know and understand including all relevant case law, so that we can comply with it all). Social workers predate children and ‘vulnerable’ people, stealing them for fun and profit. Multiple classes of enforcers inflict punishments upon us which are all in breach of our written constitution; such is the complexity and volume of law applied that enforcers can now simply make up law on the spot and inflict punishments. The average man on the back of the Clapham omnibus has no way of knowing whether it is right or wrong. The cost of determining that it is wrong is several orders of magnitude greater than the penalty, and that is before you start to try to prove the official enforcer is wrong and get his ‘verdict’ overturned in a court of law, where he will be defended by the full might of the state with access to the taxpayers’ pockets and without personal liability of he is proven to be wrong.
There is a line beyond which the state ought not to cross: that it is crossing it in so many places at once, with its constant nannying, constant hectoring and constant invention of new laws with which to empower another class of professional enforcers whose sole raison d’etre is to inflict punishment and collect fines to pay their salaries cries out that the state as a wholly artificial creation of the people for the benefit of the people is no longer fit for purpose. It has ceased to be useful to us. It is now damaging us. It is the state that must be rebuilt in a form that works for us.
Winston
So, it comes down to how we measure “success”?
I refused to pay Companies House and HMRC fines totalling £2500 unless they could prove a loss, or harm to another human. They could not, and told me that the “fines” were cancelled. Just because I asked for some evidence. Did I succeed or fail using Freeman principles? You decide.
I refused to pay Corporation Tax totalling £5000 for exactly the same reasons. They consistently threatened to take me to court to which I always said “I’d be delighted to attend”, but they never carried out their threat. My last Notice to them advised that my counter-claim would be 50 times what they were demanding from me. That was 7 or 8 months ago. Not a word since. Did I succeed or did I fail? You decide.
More recently, I refused to fill in the Census forms. They wrote back threatening me with court action and a fine of £1000. I said I would be happy to attend court but that my fee for doing so would be 1,000 ounces of silver. Per hour. No letters since, no visits, no more threats. Did I succeed or did I fail? You decide.
A colleague at work asked for my help with a speeding ticket. Road conditions were perfect and he was the only driver on that stretch of road at the time. H e was nailed by a cop with a radar gun and was sent a £60 fine and a threat of 3 points on his license. All for driving 10mph over the posted limit. Together we drafted three letters to the Chief Constable. Total cost £1.20. The fine and the addition of points on his license were cancelled. Did we succeed or did we win? You decide.
None of these examples are earth-shattering. Did I expect a marching band and worldwide fame for these wins? No.
Do I expect “the powers that be” to trumpet my success from the roof-tops? No, I do not.
Sceptics will offer all sorts of opinions as to why and how my successes are really failures, but all I can do is point to the fact that the money they demanded with menaces remains in my bank account, not theirs.
I agree that there have been dozens of “failures” in the courts. This is for a variety of reasons ranging from the unlearned taking on a machine that has operated very nicely thank you for a couple of hundred years to downright nastiness by the courts.
To misquote Edison, “I didn’t fail 999 times. I just learnt that I was doing it wrong”.
This is a fledgling movement and one I believe is on the right track but it may take many years to record the “success” that the sceptics will accept.
My thanks to Bucko for a fine piece, and for the link to my gaff.
CR.
Morning Captain, how’s travels?
“”So, it comes down to how we measure “success”?”"
I suppose it does. You have quoted some personal successes of your own for us. Are these triumphs because you applied the Freeman philosophy to the letter in each case, and that is why you won?
I have had a few DVLA fines and one speeding ticket cancelled in the past, simply by being an awkward bugger and fighting back.
To be honest I would be frightened to walk into a court and defend myself on the Freeman principle when I’ve seen no evidence that it works. How did you approach the issue of your friends ticket?
Actually, the Awkward Bugger approach can be very successful. For the most part your opponent, be it the authorities or businesses – even individuals – will take the line that you will cower when faced with the threat of litigation.
Many years ago I was advised by my employer that they frequently lost cases where they were in the right because the registrar or magistrate hearing the case generally took the side of the little man against the corporate machine.
I was fighting a battle on behalf of my sister who had been flooded out by an incompetent builder supposedly retrofitting a damp course. They drilled through the water pipes by accident and walked out leaving her to it. They then demanded their bill be settled. She refused, claiming that they had caused her the expense of the emergency plumber.
The advice I was given by my employer was to write back saying this:
This is another way of saying to the plaintiff’s solicitor that they must either put up or shut up. If they have a weak case, they will advise their client to drop it. I’ve used the technique on a number of occasions since and on every one, the bully has backed off. The caveat being; you must be absolutely sure that you are in the right.
Irrespective of the Freeman movement, CR from what he is saying here, is using much the same approach – stand your ground and face the buggers off. If their case is weak, they will usually back down.
It is too early to say yet whether he has won on the Census issue – but again, I suspect that there have been enough people refusing to make pursing someone who is clearly going to fight them not worth bothering with. They will go for the soft options wherever they can.
The trick, then, is not to be a soft option. Understand the rules of the game and use them to your advantage.
“The caveat being; you must be absolutely sure that you are in the right.”
True enough but not always. In my dealings with the DVLA on a couple of occasions I’ve taken a car off road when the tax ran out but forgot to declare SORN. They have written to me with an offer of an ‘out of court settlement’. I have filled in the SORN document and rejected their offer.
Technically I was in the wrong but they never took me to court. It must not be worth the trouble for a fifty quid fine.
It is too early to say the census issue is done with. I did a post at my blog about the census a while ago. What I found about the last census was 1.5 million people did not complete one but they only prosecuted 38. These were the ones that flat refused to do it, rather than the ones that just ignored the whole thing.
Travels go well! It is a lovely bright day here in Johannesburg.
I simply used the “prove it” method. It has worked very well for me. That is all we did with the speeding ticket too. I skipped a few details, like the senior Inspector telephoning my friend and claiming to be a lawyer and saying that his Notices were pure nonsense. The second time the Inspector called, my friend asked him if he really was a lawyer and he (the Inspector) admitted that he was not.
I also will not now enter court using Freeman principles. I believe that my standing as a Lawful Rebel is ten times stronger and ten times clearer: I don’t have to waste hours of my life explaining that I am no longer a corporation but a man whose blood flows, whose heart beats and whose eyes see. Whilst absolutely true and drenched in common sense, it is complex and one slip will result in failure.
I now know that Lawful Rebellion is the best way to fight back.
With a bit of luck I may have rock solid proof in the very near future when I attend court in connection with my UKBA fracas.
I say “may” because I realise that a success would change the landscape in ways that would shock the nation. That might sound melodramatic to some, but it really would. Imagine for one minute if I were to emerge victorious from court? How many would rush to enter Lawful Rebellion as a result, and escape every single statute ever enacted by this treasonous lot?
Mind-blowing stuff.
CR.
It’s a shitty wet day in Darwen
I would be very interested to see the result of your UKBA case. I do hope you get the one you are looking for, not just to vindicate lawful rebellion but because the UKBA are a bunch of hideous bastards and I would love to see them take a big fall.
By Notices, are you refering to the notice of intent (?) and what do you do, send a copy to them when you dispute? Is that necessary when using the prove it method?
Hope you don’t mind me butting in.
Whilst you are in Johannesburg, ask some questions about the end of Apartheid. I understand that it was not the Sports Boycott, Cultural Boycott or any other Boycott that caused Apartheid to crumble and eventually fall, it was non-compliance. Houses were brought by front companies and non-whites moved into white only areas. Blacks no longer carried their passbooks, too many to prosecute and jail.
My argument is that the ultimate people power is non-compliance.
Dembones,
No need to ask. I was here when it started kicking off.
I vividly recall many many gatherings where blacks burnt their “dompas” (dumb pass).
You are absolutely right: when people say no, and mean it, governments tremble.
CR.
People are a little more sheepish over here.
The government (sucessive) have turned us into a nation of people who won’t say no. On the contrary, they are more likely to turn on any individual who does say no.
The blacks in SA were openly oppressed though. Our lot are a bit more subtle.
Dembones, you are correct that all those Boycotts had little effect on the powers that then were in SA. I suspect that economic pressure was biting a bit, but the simple answer is that it ended because in 1992 the then voters (white only) voted 69%-31% in a referendum, to end it.
That said, you are correct that it was often honoured more in the breach than the observance, but that varied hugely depending on where you were in the country, and what area of the economy was involved.
The UKBA thing is too big for them to lose. They will no doubt tie me in knots, or the case will never come to court. We will see.
Freemen never send letters. They always send Notices. It does not necessarily mean a Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right, but it could be. I simply have NOTICE underlined and in bold on every single communique with TPTB. I advise them that they are not (ignorable) letters and I always use a 1p stamp and cancel it with my signature. This adds weight to the Notice as it indicates I am the Postmaster.
I never dispute. Instead I send a “conditional acceptance”. That way I remain in honour. I have lost count of the times TPTB were in dishonour and this will reflect well on me should I ever get anywhere near a court-room.
CR.
Keep us updated on this.
BTW, you do know how corrupt the system is?
Damo,
I will and I do.
CR.