Freeman on the land – Wikipedia

[1] “ legal appoint imposter ” billboard in the UK making arguments similar to those of the “ Freemen-on-the-Land ” apparent motion The freeman-on-the-land drift, besides known as the freemen-of-the-land ( sometimes abbreviated as FOTL [ 2 ] ), the freemen movement, or simply freemen, is a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by codified laws entirely if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the predominate of law, holding that the entirely “ true ” law is their own idiosyncratic interpretation of “ common law “. [ 3 ]

Freemen on the land are by and large award in Commonwealth countries. Their claims have been argued in the courts of Australia and Canada and the United Kingdom, vitamin a well as in the United States, [ 2 ] but have constantly been rejected. The freeman on the land campaign is an offspring of the autonomous citizen motion, which is more prevailing in the US. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ]

history [edit ]

There is some cross-over between the two groups which call themselves Freemen and Sovereign Citizens ( and some others ). The origins of both dwell in the extremist and racist anti-government movements in the US in the 1960s and 1970s, with the ideas garnering more support during the american grow crisis of the belated 1970s and 1980s and a fiscal crisis in both the US and Canada in the same period. [ 8 ] With the advent of the Internet and continuing during the twenty-first century, people throughout the english-speaking world who partake the core belief of these movements ( which may be loosely defined as “ see [ ing ] the state as a pot with no authority over release citizens ” ) have been able to connect and share their beliefs. There are now followers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. [ 8 ] The pseudolegal ideas used originated with the Sovereign Citizen apparent motion in the United States, and then around the turn of the twenty-first century began to be used by the Freeman on the Land bowel movement in Canada. By the deep 2000s they had besides started to spread to Freeman groups in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, and to assorted groups in Europe. [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

Canada [edit ]

Pre-Detaxer motion [edit ]

In 1937, R. Rogers Smith published Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use Its Own Credit, which argued that the british North America Act and the Statute of Westminster 1931 did not make Canada an mugwump nation, but left it a british colony, and that the constituent division of powers between the Canadian federal government and peasant governments was not defined. [ 10 ] In 1945, Walter Frederick Kuhl MP delivered a actor’s line in the House of Commons of Canada in which he argued, based on Smith ‘s theories, that the Canadian constitution was bad and needed to be amended. [ 10 ] In the 1950s, Gerrald Hart, an electronics shopkeeper from Winnipeg, engaged in anti-tax efforts that included submitting tax returns that rejected indebtedness rather of correctly reporting his shop class ‘s tax liabilities. [ 10 ] In The Queen v. Hart Electronics Limited, Hart was charged with failure to file a tax restitution. The Manitoba Court of Appeal behave Hart, ruling that his unsigned, unusual tax reappearance was still a tax fall, and refused to consider whether the tax return was adequate. [ 10 ] Hart besides claimed that the Supreme Court govern in Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (1951) SCR 31 meant that income tax acts passed by the canadian government since 1971 were unconstitutional. [ 10 ] He published the Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance that described his strategies to avoid taxes. [ 10 ] In the early 1990s, Murray Gauvreau worked with social credit group Pilgrims of Saint Michael to promote tax dissenter strategies based on Hart’s System of Effective Tax Avoidance via the organization ‘s Michael journal. [ 10 ] Gauvreau ‘s arguments, based on filing defective tax returns, deoxyadenosine monophosphate well as built-in arguments based on the division of powers, were rejected by the Court of Queen ‘s Bench of Alberta. [ 10 ] In the 1980s and the 1990s, fiscal misconception conspiracy theories exchangeable to those found in american tax demonstrator movements were besides adopted by canadian tax demonstrator groups. [ 11 ] In 1999, arguments based on the constituent part of powers, earlier used by Hart and Gauvreau, were further developed by Robert A. Marquis in his book Fraud, Deception, Manipulation, but failed to mention that these arguments had already been rejected by canadian courts. [ 10 ]

Detaxer bowel movement ( 1998 ) [edit ]

Around 1998, [ 11 ] canadian original Eldon Gerald Warman, who was exposed to american pseudo-legal concepts, promoted ideas adapted from the American sovereign citizen movement in Canada by organising seminars via his Detax Canada web site. [ 11 ] [ 10 ] He claimed to be subject only to “ common law ”, referring not to modern subject law, but to historical English case police. [ 10 ] He credited as his mentor american english activist Roger Elvick, who had founded the redemption movement in the United States ; the redemption bowel movement adhered to the front man theory, which is based on the affirmation that state legislative assurance only extends to an individual ‘s legal person, and not to their natural person. [ 10 ] Warman claimed that whereas in the United States, an individual ‘s Social Security Number was used to attach this “ scarecrow ” to a natural person, in Canada, this was done using a parentage certificate. [ 11 ] Around 2000, Warman besides worked with Ernst Friedrich Kyburz and Sikander Abdulali “ Alex ” Muljiani to promote anti-tax ideas, based on the Sovereign citizen campaign ‘s impression, at joint seminars across Canada. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] He besides used misinterpretations of canadian lawsuit law to justify unexclusive car practice. [ 10 ] Warman asserted that government authority over an individual arises from a condense, that legislative act law can not be used to impose on a person a contract that deprives the individual of property rights and freedom to travel, and that person rights and liberties derived from Anglo-Saxon common law, deoxyadenosine monophosphate well as Magna Carta. [ 11 ] He instructed his followers to use disclaimers in income tax returns, to reject agreement from the Canada Revenue Agency and to refrain from citing the constitution of Canada in court, to avoid entering into an assumpsit contract. [ 11 ] He asked them rather to deny the “ straw man ”, claim “ common law ” jurisdiction, and differently claim the right to silence. [ 11 ] Warman besides used pre-Detaxer arguments to assert that the Canadian fundamental law was defective, and proposed a modern constitutional text file, the Magna Carta Kanata. [ 11 ] however, he criticised other pre-Detaxer strategies and suggested that they were secretly sponsored by the Canada Revenue Agency itself. [ 11 ] In 1999, Warman attempted to use these pseudo-legal arguments to assert that the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have jurisdiction over him in R v Warman (2000) BCPC 0022, [ 12 ] after he was charged with assaulting a police officeholder. [ 11 ] On denying Warman ‘s appeal, the british Columbia Court of Appeal noted that his arguments were based on a rejection of state and judicial authority. [ 11 ] Warman, who died in 2017, was emulated by respective other “ guru ”, including Alex Muljiani and Russell Porisky of the Paradigm Education Group. The Detaxer campaign went through a worsen and appears to have disappeared. Its latest advocate has been David Kevin Lindsay, who complained in 2016 that canadian pseudolaw affiliates and guru had become excessively determine by US concepts. [ 13 ]

Freeman on the estate apparent motion ( from 2000 ) [edit ]

The Freeman on the land movement in Canada was the product of one individual key “ guru ”, Robert Arthur Menard. The celebrated difference between the Detaxer and Freemen on the nation populations is that the latter shows a politically collectivist, “ green “, anti-globalisation, social militant and cannabis advocacy orientation. [ 13 ] Menard entered pseudolaw as a scholar of Detaxer theories, which he late espoused on the Internet – using on-line forums such as “ cannabis culture ” – and in books. His commitment to pseudolaw developed around 2000, during a challenge with child social welfare authorities over access to and detention of a child of a adolescent spouse. Menard ‘s guru activeness initially focused on how parturition software documentation allegedly authorises state master of children. He late expanded his claims, asserting that he could immunize people from canadian law as a whole. Menard used the give voice “ Freeloader-on-the-Land ” to describe how people could deny their sociable and legal obligations while still taking advantage of canadian services and infrastructures. [ 13 ] Menard showed small conceptual invention, and used simplified versions of Detaxer theories which he merely restated as fact. however, his skillfull function of sociable media helped him achieve more achiever than Warman. Freeman on the land ideology developed in Canada as a chiefly criminal culture, its court applications aimed to legitimise illegal activities. [ 13 ] Since 2010, the Freeman on the bring motion has declined in Canada due to the persistent failure of its concepts in court. Menard largely withdrew from the scene and newer “ guru ” have met with little success. [ 13 ] The Court of Queen ‘s Bench of Alberta ‘s 2012 Meads v. Meads decision, which refuted in detail Freeman on the estate and other pseudolegal theories, has since been used as case law against pseudolegal tactics by courts in Canada angstrom well as in other Commonwealth countries. [ 9 ]

United Kingdom [edit ]

Freeman on the estate ideology reached the United Kingdom in the late 2000s. use of pseudolaw in the UK is difficult to evaluate, but there is clear evidence of an active community using concepts largely derived from canadian Freeman on the Land sources. Unlike Canadians Freemen who chiefly use pseudolaw to justify illegal activity, UK litigants by and large focus on economic reasons, such as avoiding council tax, motor vehicle registration and indemnity, television license fees, mortgages, and early debts. Two outstanding UK freeman on the land gurus are male-to-female transsexuals, Veronica Chapman and “ Kate of Gaia ”, the latter being a canadian expatriate who advances a New Age -flavoured version of the scarecrow theory. [ 13 ] In 2016, billboards in the UK advertised the freeman on the land concept of “ legal identify fraud ”, a variation of the front man theory claim that “ all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is imposter ”. The beginning and beginning of fund of this operation, which involved Kate of Gaia, are ill-defined. [ 1 ]

ireland [edit ]

In the Republic of Ireland, where freeman on the bring tactics have been imported roughly at the same prison term as in the United Kingdom, local guru have created Ireland-specific motifs of defective express assurance, citing the Constitution of Ireland and presenting Brehon law, quite than English common law, as the true source of legislation. [ 13 ]

Australia [edit ]

Australia has a tradition of pseudolaw, dating back to the 1980s and autonomous citizen concepts were imported into Australia during the 1990s. local anesthetic guru have been using Australia-specific concepts ; however, australian pseudolaw litigants identify as freemen on the down or use Canadian-style freeman documents. [ 13 ]

New Zealand [edit ]

Unlike Australia, New Zealand has not developed local concepts. New Zealand documents have shown influence from multiple extraneous sources, including canadian freemen on the state. [ 13 ]

Groupings [edit ]

A numeral of anti-state movements with alike tactics but different ideologies may receive the label “ Freeman-on-the-Land ”. [ 14 ]

Canada [edit ]

In Canada, four early anti-authority factions have been identified : [ 14 ]

1. the Detaxer movement, which has its focus generally limited to escaping tax payments through pseudolaw;
2. sovereign citizens, who are more akin to the right-wing leaning US groups;[15]
3. the Moorish Divine and National Movement, which is an African-Canadian/American variant of sovereign citizens believing they constitute a separate nation within Canadian borders; and
4. Indigenous groups and those claiming inauthentic indigenous identities, such as one person who attempted to use pseudo-law and bullying to usurp the council of the Squamish Nation.[15]

Nine classes of adherents of Freeman-on-the-Land and similar anti-authority groups in Canada have been identified : [ 14 ]

1. fantastical believers, who operate in an alternative frame of reference that may be difficult to distinguish from mental illness;
2. conspiracy theorists, whose paranoid worldview is rich in blame to outside entities;
3. escapists, who want autonomy and tend to be loners;
4. dabblers/opportunists, who see the movement as a chance to get out from under sudden setbacks including family or financial problems;
5. sympathisers, who share the ideologies and anti-government views, but continue to fulfil their obligations and do not engage in confrontational or pseudolegal tactics;
6. the committed, with active, ongoing anti-authority conflict, which may or may not have started with a sudden event like the dabblers/opportunists;
7. violent extremists, who are rare, but move past pseudolegal tactics;
8. entrepreneurs, who exploit other adherents by means such as “money for nothing” schemes or providing pseudolegal services or documents for a fee; and
9. gurus, either with an established following or developing one, who seek visibility in the movement with their take on world events and pseudolaw theories.

Associate Justice J. D. Rooke, in his Meads v. Meads 2012 decision, describes the freeman on the farming apparent motion as having “ libertarian and correct wing overtones ”. [ 16 ] In a 2019 article of the Alberta Law Review, Donald J. Netolitzky disagrees with this judgment, which he considers a confusion between the freeman on the land and sovereign citizen movements : according the Netolitzky, a sociological study has shown that, while identical hostile to state and institutional actors, the freeman on the land population is predominately left list. He stresses, however, that freemen on the land are ideologically heterogenous and are “ less an administration or “ movement ” than a collection of individuals who hold powerful anti-authority impression ”. Given the “ amorphous ” character of the “ freeman ” population, there is a “ broad lap ” between their beliefs and those of the autonomous citizens, which leads to confusion between the two. [ 9 ]

Australia [edit ]

In Australia, there is some cross-over between groups which call themselves freemen on the land and autonomous citizens ( and some others ). [ 17 ] [ 2 ] There have been several court cases testing the kernel concept, none successful for the “ freemen ”. [ 18 ] In 2015, the New South Wales Police Force identified “ autonomous citizens ” as a potential terrorist threat, estimating that there were about 300 sovereign citizens in the state at the time. [ 19 ] Sovereign citizens from the US have undertaken talk tours to New Zealand and Australia, with some support among farmers struggling with drought and other hardships. A group called United Rights Australia ( U R Australia [ 20 ] ) has a Facebook presence, and there are other websites promulgating Freemen/Sovereign Citizen ideas. [ 8 ] [ 21 ] From the 2010s, there has been a growing number of Freemen targeting autochthonal Australians, with groups with names like Tribal Sovereign Parliament of Gondwana Land, the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation ( OSTF ) [ 22 ] and the Original Sovereign Confederation. OSTF Founder Mark McMurtrie, an Aboriginal Australian valet, has produced YouTube videos speaking about “ coarse police ”, which incorporate Freemen beliefs. Appealing to other aboriginal people by partially identifying with the state rights campaign, McMurtrie played on their feelings of alienation and lack of faith in the systems which had not served autochthonal people well. [ 23 ]

United Kingdom [edit ]

In the United Kingdom, freeman on the kingdom political orientation has influenced The People ‘s United Community ( TPUC ), a group created in 2007 to opposed tax income, european consolidation and the conservative government. One UK-specific concept espoused by TPUC was the mind that a freeman could write the Queen and invoke Clause 61 of the Magna Carta to negate Royal ( and politics ) agency. however, Clause 61 empowers 25 Barons to restrict the monarch, but nowhere mentions “ lawful rebellion ”. Freeman ideas besides spilled into the UK Occupy movement. [ 13 ]

ireland [edit ]

In the Republic of Ireland, the Tir na Saor web site, which operated from 2009 to 2016, was a major hub for the irish pseudolaw residential district and showed clear canadian freeman influences. The most unusual development of freeman ideology in Ireland was the creation of a political party, Direct Democracy Ireland, created in 2010 by anti-foreclosure activist and serial litigant Ben Gilroy. Direct Democracy Ireland did ill at elections and the Irish freeman on the kingdom motion finally went into refuse. [ 13 ]

Beliefs [edit ]

The core impression of both sovereign citizens and freemen have been broadly defined as “ see [ ing ] the state as a pot with no authority over release citizens ”. [ 8 ] Freemen ‘s beliefs are largely based on misunderstandings and desirous think, and do not stand up to legal scrutiny. [ 24 ] Freemen arguments have been rejected in the courts of England and Wales. [ 25 ] [ 24 ] The canadian encase Meads v. Meads ( see below ) identified five major themes in the Freeman-on the-Land belief systems : [ 9 ]

exemption from legal power [edit ]

An exemplar of a notice used by a self-described freeman-on-the-land in Belfast, Northern Ireland. A phone number of arguments are employed to claim immunity from law. These arguments are described in Meads as “ magic trick hats ”, but there has been limited use of the terminus since. [ 9 ] many freemen beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of admiralty or maritime law, which the freemen claim govern the commercial worldly concern. These impression stem from fringe interpretations of versatile nautical-sounding terms, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a ship and the woo ‘s occupants as passengers, and may claim that those leaving are “ men overboard ”. [ 24 ] Freemen will try to claim coarse jurisprudence ( as opposed to admiralty law ) jurisdiction by asking “ Do you have a call against me ? ” This, they contend, removes their accept to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common police court, so that proceedings would have to go ahead according to their adaptation of common police. This procedure has never been successfully used. [ 25 ] [ 24 ] Freemen will frequently not accept legal representation, believing 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 consequently under admiralty law. They believe that since the abolition of the gold standard, UK currency is backed not by aureate but by the people ( or the “ legal fabrication of their persons ” ). They describe persons as creditors of the UK pot. therefore, a court is a place of commercial enterprise, and a summons is an invitation to discuss the matter at hand, with no powers to require attendance or submission. [ 24 ] They may believe that the government controls secret bank accounts in their name as part of this hypothesis, which may be accessed to pay off debts .

Everything is contractual [edit ]

Freemen believe that codified law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore choose out of legislative act police, choosing rather to live under what they call “ common ” ( case ) and “ lifelike ” laws. They believe lifelike laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the place of others, and do not use “ fraud or mischief ” in contracts. [ 24 ] Freemen believe that since they exist in a coarse law legal power where equality is overriding and mandatary, the people in the politics and courts are not above the police, and that government and court personnel therefore must obtain the accept of the governed. Freemen believe that politics employees who do not obtain accept 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 condition as freemen in exchange for the condition of a “ child of the province ” or “ ward of the state ”, allowing those children to collect benefits such as wellbeing, unemployment insurance, and pension plans or old age security. [ citation needed ] 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 sol, one has established joinder and connected the physical and homo persons. The next step is to obtain accept, as they believe that statutes are merely invitations to enter a narrow, and are alone legally enforceable if one enters into the contract consensually. otherwise, they believe that codified laws are not applicable. Freemen believe that the government is constantly trying to trick people into entering into a compress with them, so they much return bills, notices, summons and so on with the message “ No contract—return to sender ”. [ 24 ]

muteness as consent [edit ]

A “ notice of understand and purpose and claim of correct ” is a document used by freemen to declare their sovereignty. The gestural document, often notarised, is sent to the Queen and possibly other authorities such as the Prime Minister and police chiefs. It normally begins with the words “ Whereas it is my sympathy ” and goes on to state their understanding of the jurisprudence and their lack of consent to it. [ 24 ]

double identity [edit ]

A common impression is that people have two parts to their being : their soundbox and their legal “ person ”. The former is joined to the latter by the parturition certificate ; some freemen claim that it is entirely limited to the birth security. Under this theory, a “ straw man ” is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this straw man is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different diagnose, such as “ John of the class Smith ” rather of “ John Smith ”. [ 24 ]

money for nothing [edit ]

An implication of the front man theory is that there is some government-controlled account linked to a person through the parturition certificate. The redemption movement, nowadays normally called “ Accept for Value ” and abbreviated “ A4V ”, suggests that the value of that account can be applied to fiscal obligations and even criminal charges. [ 26 ]

Court cases [edit ]

Canada [edit ]

• 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, describing them as frivolous and vexatious.[27][28][16] In refuting 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”.[29]
  Dennis Larry Meads of Edmonton, Alberta, abruptly left a hearing in the Court of Queen ‘s Bench of Alberta on 8 June 2012, related to his divorce and marital property case. In reply, Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke wrote a drawn-out and comprehensive examination 185-page judgment rejecting diverse freemen, redemption and sovereign citizen claims, grouping them with other pseudolegal arguments as “ Organized Pseudolegal commercial Arguments ” ( OPCA ), specifically, in this font, Meads ‘ freeman on the nation claims, arguments and documents, saying that : [ 27 ]

  The bluffly imbecile message of Mr. Mead ‘s [ sic ] controversy explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as dim-witted ideas, but rather are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and mighty sound terminology are frequently used. Documents are much ornamented with many strange markings and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court impart. All these features appear necessity for guru to market OPCA schemes to their frequently desperate, ill‑informed, mentally brainsick, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or scheme. The narrative and process of a OPCA outline is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer. [ 16 ] [ emphasis in master ]

  In a subsequent ruling on another OPCA case, Gauthier v. Starr, 2016 ABQB 213, Justice Rooke noted that, following the ruling, Mr. Meads had abandoned OPCA strategies and concluded the litigation in an orderly fashion.[30]

• Wilfred Keith Thompson and two others were arrested by police in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, charged with breaking, entering and theft as well as firearms offences. Thompson had previously made headlines for informing City Hall, local police, Guelph MP Frank Valeriote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other officials he is “an autonomous being not controlled by others”. One of his co-defendants, Trevor “Red” De Block, refused to identify himself to the court, though it was said that his criminal mug shot, computer records, tattoos and other information confirmed his identity. “I object,” De Block said, adding that he was not the “rightful owner” of his name, but refusing to clarify or participate in legal proceedings. “I don’t bow down to bail . . . to false gods,” he said, and rejected assistance from the appointed lawyer. Thompson and De Block were denied bail.[31]

England and Wales [edit ]

As of 2011 there was no recorded case of freeman tactics being uphold in a court of law in the UK. [ 25 ]

ireland [edit ]

• Bobby Sludds appeared in court in County Wexford in Ireland, charged with various motoring offences including two counts of no insurance. Before the police began to give evidence, the accused handed in a letter stating he was not Mr. Sludds but Bobby of the family Sludds and questioning the use of the word ‘person’ in the charge. He was given two suspended sentences and a fine of €670. (He had 24 previous convictions for motoring offences.)[45]

Australia [edit ]

The adopt motor hotel cases have been based on the Freeman argument : [ 46 ]

professional advisories [edit ]

Lawyers and notaries in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, have been warned by their professional bodies about dealing with freemen as clients. [ 55 ] In particular, lawyers have been advised to be careful not to stamp or notarise the pseudo-legal documents that freemen typically use, so as not to create a sensing of authority for such documents. [ 56 ] U.S. police, both speaking personally and as official steering, have provided advice to police enforcement on dealing with the exchangeable sovereign citizen motion. These have noted the necessitate for caution after a sheath in which two policemen were murdered by a “ autonomous citizen ” during a traffic discontinue. [ 57 ]

See besides [edit ]

References [edit ]

license [edit ]

As of this edit, this article uses content from “ Freeman on the land ” , authored by RationalWiki editors, 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.