Freemen of the Land Defence


I’m not at all convinced by this approach. We live under an absolute despotism tempered by a certain regard for the proprieties. Insisting on contractual rights with the authorities cannot ultimately succeed. The pleas in question strike me as legal gibberish. On the other hand, there is no doubt the Judge and lawyers here – assuming the case has been accurately transcribed – are confused and would rather not have to deal with the arguments. If enough people do this, the State may have to retreat. SIG

The Cat Is Out OF The Bag

5.2.11

From the UK Column 2011 Issue 1

This article is a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga… now in its 3rd year.

The story so far: The council have demanded council tax from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years – on the grounds that there is no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think that they have the right to demand that I pay council tax…which they do not. I am happy to pay my council tax – but only when the Council has agreed to provide me with a lawful contract… this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.

The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger Hayes) – but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES… but that isn’t me.

If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction – please refer to previous articles or the UK Column web site www.uk-column.org .

On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of witnesses, the court conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act as ‘third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court agreed that they were two entirely separate entities. This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.

The court however did not concede without putting up a very vigorous fight… this is how events unfolded in the court room.

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court… is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?

Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?

Me: No sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES… you may address me as Roger.

Judge: I will not address you as Roger; I will call you MR HAYES.

Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to me as MR HAYES).

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.

Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court. (NOTE – This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared).

Judge: I can see that the council has representation in the court.

Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law… if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge: No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir, A PERSON  is a  corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary). Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you are familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Judge: Let’s hear from the council.

Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.

Judge: Fine.

And the case continued… with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council. Smart judge.

So what does this all mean? In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me, the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.

The legal fiction cat is truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes… because as the court agrees… MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation… which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established – I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

About these ads

73 responses to “Freemen of the Land Defence

  1. This is indeed legal gibberish. It might cause confusion in one or two instances but if it became widespread it would become stamped out quickish.

  2. I agree. However, if it became VERY widespread, who can say what might come of that? I think these Freemen of the Land are worth watching.

  3. The ‘Freemen of the Land’ are idiots who are doing us no favours.

    In small numbers they cause a bit of confusion in the courts because of their bizare behaviour. In large numbers, the confusion would quickly dry up as people became familiar with their nonsense.

    They base their entire approach on legal fantasies and fictions. That will never achieve anything, it can not ever achieve anything. Basing the argument for liberty on legal fictions and fantasies will not advance it. Indeed, that approach may well lose public credibility and support.

  4. I agree with CH.

  5. People have often believed some very strange things, yet still been motivated by them to do great good.

    Don’t write this people off.

  6. Dr Gabb,

    Don’t be too hard on old CH.

    He just wants to talk about libertarianism until he quietly passes on to the next realm. He doesn’t actually want to TRY anything if there is any risk attached.

    He talks the talk. Some of us walk the walk.

    Cue ad hominem attack. It’s what he does best.

    CR.

  7. John Kersey says on Facebook:

    John wrote “There is much information within the Freeman movement that can help anyone interested in dealing more effectively with the civil law menace posed by the present establishment in exactly the practical situations James mentions above and many more. That is a major reason why those seeking to live free from the state should be interested in it. Freemen/Lawful Rebellion advocates do not pretend to have all or even most of the answers, but they are actively engaged in a process of theoretical enquiry and practical testing that is repeatedly pushing at the boundaries of the civil law and occasionally finding that those boundaries will yield to pressure. It is the aim behind that process – to live free from the malign influence of the state and the corporations – that should engage all of us interested in liberty, and it is that aim that means I continue to watch what they are doing with interest.”

  8. Yes Sean, but against that is the powerful argument that it’s total bollocks.

  9. “…it’s total bollocks.”

    Do you know that for sure, (your evidence is slightly underwhelming), or are you just CH’s brother?

    Tell me why over 800 years of common law is “total bollocks”.

    CR.

  10. Oh dear Captain.

    It’s all being pointed out to you before in great detail, so i assume that you are wilfully ignorant.

    Parliamentary Law (statutory law) is not restricted to purely Admiralty Law. As that strange and false conceit is the basis of your entire ‘Freeman’ legal mumbo jumbo, it therefore all falls apart.

    Unlike you I believe in facing reality, however unpleasant, rather than retreating into comforting delusions.

  11. Where, exactly, has it been proven/pointed out to be bollocks?
    If you are talking about the LA paper of a few weeks ago then that wasn’t convincing. A law dog offering the opinion that law dogs rule.
    The Freemen are taking risks and fighting back albeit with words.
    Ian B thinks to destablise the the state with porn and you, CH, what? You will continue your portentious contemplations leavened with the odd missive hosing the rest of down with your deep wisdom.

  12. Where, exactly, has it been proven/pointed out to be bollocks?

    It doesn’t work that way. The nul hypothesis in this situation is that it’s bollocks. If you’re arguing that the law means something radically different to what everybody thinks it does, it is your job to prove that case.

    Ian B thinks to destablise the the state with porn and you, CH, what?

    Well, bear in mind that the owner of said magazine fought a legal battle for freedom of expression so significant that a major Hollywood movie was made about it. I look forward to the one about how the Freedmen overturned the entire tradition of Anglosphere jurisprudence by revealing that the Law meant something entirely different to what everybody had always thought it meant.

    I can just imagine the great climactic speech; “See, this is a dock I’m standing in, right. And a dock, that’s like where boats park. So like, um, I’m on a boat and, er, so, I must be under Admiralty Law, right? You have no jurisdiction over me, landlubbers!!!11!”

    The courtroom erupts in cheers as the vanquished judge and lawyers admit defeat and slink out of the courtroom. Roll credits.

  13. Let me repeat myself. I believe that, whatever ought to be the case, The Queen-in-Parliament is absolutely sovereign, and can make any law those in charge of it demand of it. Therefore, the Freemen of the Land are wrong in fact. However, if enough people believe the law is other than it is, then the law itself changes. Something like this happened in the 17th century, when, without little change by Parliament, a law that favoured royal absolutism was gradually forced to recognise a vague primacy of individual rights. So it may be with the Freemen of the Land. I wish them well.

  14. Dr Gabb, Their idiotic claims to be boats because they are in the ‘dock’ when in court isn’t going to change peoples minds, it isn’t going to gather any support for Liberty and isn’t going to change the Law or how it is interpreted.

    All it will do is make people who care about Libertarianism look like freaks.

    Real Libertarians should be sure not to be associated with such delusional laughing stocks.

  15. Ian,

    You seem to think that the “law” is black and white. It isn’t.

    Did you know that the human eyeball can distinguish over five hundred shades of grey?

    Is it possible that I (and my fellow Freemen) have detected a shade that you cannot discern?

    You may think that legal and lawful are interchangeable. They are not. Lawful concerns the man, and legal concerns the legal fiction. The legal fiction was created after slavery was abolished. The government (and the courts) cannot deal with you, the man. They can only interact with your fiction. The human cannot engage in commerce, but the fiction can. I originally thought I should dump this fiction of mine. I saw it as a millstone. Following many months of research I decided to hang on to it and use it to my advantage. I’m glad I did. My fiction allows me to withhold taxes and fines. Thanks to the judges admission, I can now say “I agree that my legal fictions owes you £XXX, so get it from the fiction. I, the man, owe you nothing”.

    You keep on parting with over 80% of your earnings via taxes and fines if you want to. I have lawful excuse not to now. So if it’s all the same to you, I will play the game, according to their rules, and maybe win a round now and again. For a change.

    CR.

  16. Captain. You make big claims about how you don’t have to pay taxes and fines. You also claim that a judge has ‘admitted’ that you don’t have to pay them, only a ‘legal fiction’ does.

    Captain, you are a liar.

    No judge has ever agreed with you or admitted that you don’t need to pay taxes or fines. You have never successfully evaded any taxes because of your Freeman arguments.

    I’ll be kind, maybe you are just a deluded fantasist rather than completely a liar, but the fact remains that you are making untruthful claims.

  17. CH,

    I am a liar? Really?

    You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have not successfully withheld fines and taxes?

    If you could avoid the insults and the ad homs and imagine, just for a nanosecond, that I am a human being, and simply asked me, I would detail my successes for you.

    Here are just two:

    I dealt with a speeding fine my friend was issued with. He should have paid £60 and had 3 points added to his driving license. It took just three letters to deal with it. We ran rings around the CC and his legal department. No fine, no points added.

    I have “owed” £5K to the taxman since December 2007. They keep demanding the money, and I keep demanding that they prove that I owe it in the first place. They keep threatening to take me to court, and I keep telling them to take me to court.

    All I did was ask for proof. They cannot answer. They cannot provide proof that I (as a human) must pay this money to them.

    If the world worked the way you insist it does, I would have made an appearance long ago. I have them beaten. They know that but will do everything they can NOT to admit that I have won.

    I am many things, CH, but a liar is not one of them.

    If you are going to accuse people of lying, you really must bring evidence.

    I think that you are a drone. I don’t think you have a libertarian bone in your entire body. The proof of this is contained in your insulting, childish scribblings. The best you can do, and we have been here before, is to insult people.

    Not very libertarian of you, is it?

    Am I not to be permitted a contrary view?

    And, true to form, you twist my words. I have not stated that “a judge admits that we don’t have to pay taxes and fines”. I repeated what Roger said in his piece: a judge has admitted that a man can be separated from his legal fiction. The ramifications of that are that we can now step away from taxes and fines and point the finger at our fictions.

    CR.

  18. Captain, you have repeatedly made claims about how you avoid taxes and fines with your ‘Freeman’ legal/lawful arguments.

    But that is not so. When pressed to give examples all you can do is point to cases where someone is being dragged through court because he is trying your futile arguments. You have never shown an example of the actual, successful application of your ‘Freeman’ legal arguments.

    You are a liar. (or delusional)

    As for being entitled to your own opinions, certainly, if you wish to claim that you are the Emperor of the Moon, you are entitled to that opinion. And i am entitled to point out that you are wrong and either a liar or delusional.

  19. And when you state that

    ‘I repeated what Roger said in his piece: a judge has admitted that a man can be separated from his legal fiction. ‘

    You are lying.

    The Judge never ‘admitted’ any such thing. As anyone can clearly see who isn’t being deliberately dishonest or delusional.

  20. CH,

    The insults are getting a tad wearing. Can you not argue without them?

    There isn’t much point in me describing my successes if all you are going to do is shout “LIAR!”.

    I’ll try again, patiently, as one would with an infant.

    I ran a limited company for three years. I had to form the company to comply with European law as I was contracted to a Dutch company. When my contract ended, I shut-down the company. I sent my last set of figures to my Accountant but she was awful, and consistently failed to file them on time. I was fined £500 (three times) by Companies House. The simplest thing to do was to blame the Accountant but I thought I would try something different, as I had just discovered a great many things about the law.

    I asked Companies House to prove that I had caused harm, injury or loss to another human being by not paying the fines. They admitted, in writing, that I had not. The “fines” were cancelled.

    HMRC got upset that I had not filed my accounts on time and fined me £100. Six times. I asked them the same question and I got the same result. The fines were cancelled.

    So far a saving of £2,100 just because I asked for proof of claim.

    I still “owe” them around £5K. They still cannot provide proof of their claim that I need to pay this amount.

    When I am ready to leave my cloak of anonymity I will publish all of the letters to and from HMRC on my blog.

    In the meantime, keep calling me a liar, keep calling me delusional.

    It obviously keeps you happy.

    CR.

  21. just to contribute a suggestion toward the concern raised earlier that any individual effort to avoid state extortion may affect popular perception of libertarianism. it will come as a shock that there is no popular perception of libertarianism. even people interested in politics who have stumbled across the word dont have the first clue about the idea. those who think they do usually have it completely wrong. so i dont think that this non existent public image can be damaged. the number of people who comprise the popular perception of libertarianism can and do fit into a tiny meeting room.
    second what is the alternative? bit of online backslapping and name calling among a self regarding elite? what will have a greater effect on baz down the kings head – telling him simply that he doesnt have to pay tax or slipping him a copy of some nineteenth century economic theory? ere ya go baz ill swap you this bastiat for that ricardo. id be interested to see the web traffic stats for the libertarian alliance vs whatever the freemen are visiting.
    all this is hair pullingly frustrating. its been around 6 months since i discovered libertarianism and in that time it has opened a door onto a bright and shining world of freedom but also shown this to be nigh-on unattainable. not only are those in power against you, not only are the intelligentsia against you but the entire world of normal people are against you. if anyone actually wants freedom then by all means slate the freemen if you have a better idea but in all its history the libertarian movement has achieved nothing in the real world.
    if anything is going to damage any potential popular perception of libertarianism it will be the deeply ingrained stain of cultural conservatism. which is the more embarrassing article to publish – one on the freeman movement or yet another tedious sermonising puritanical moral rant (im pointing to the last two by dj)?
    what would happen if there were to be a referendum on the adoption of a perfect libertarian constitution tomorrow? everyone would hop online and google libertarianism to see what the hell the new world was going to be like – anyone stumbling across the libertarian alliance on almost everyday would be met with conservative attitudes.
    its so easy to tar libertarianism with the brush of ‘evil right-wingers’. we’ve seen it in the US where libertarianism does have some small measure of a popular profile. if you want the advice of the kind of naive under-educated fool that you will need for support then i suggest you drop the conservatism quick. that is the real embarrassment not the freemen – they are the supporters you should be trying to recruit.

  22. The fuction of the LA Blog is to put a range of libertarian arguments. This includes conservative libertarianism, Freeman of the Land libertarianism, mutualist libertarianism, and whatever else may be sent to us on any particular day.

    Readers of this blog may complain till they are black in the face about some of the stuff we carry. They need to bear in mind that they are at liberty to follow their own advice on their own blogs.

  23. Will,

    The problem with the Freemen’s catalogue of beliefs is that they are not true. It may appeal to Baz down the King’s Head that he doesn’t have to pay any taxes (although there are high levels of support among the commoners for taxpaying anyway, especially as most taxes are perceived to be paid by wealthier people to fund schools’n’ospitals) but if Baz actually tries to apply these ideas he’s going to be in for a nasty encounter with State power rather than striding into the broad sunlit uplands of freedom. As CH has said, for the libertarian movement to be associated with harmful crankishness isn’t going to do us any good.

    On your point about conservatism, I couldn’t agree more, and have repeatedly said similar things here. For the leader of the Libertarian Alliance- a man promoting extremely radical libertarian ideas- to call a book “How Conservatives lost England and how we can get it back” fills me with such despair that I want to just bang my head on my desk until the world goes away. Nothing can do us more harm in recruiting than portraying libertarians merely as some kind of ultra-conservatives, the sort of Maoist wing of the Tory Party.

    Myself, I’ve started self-identifying as either an Individualist or a Libertine[1] as an alternative to the increasingly tainted “Libertarian”[2]. I don’t know how many talks Sean is going to have to deliver to Conservative groups, only to receive a hail of rotten vegetables and stale buns from the audience, before he realises that there is no common ideological bond between they and we, really I don’t. If we take the aforementioned book, while it has a slightly rocky Daily Mailish start, by the end it’s a stirring call for an unprecedented, ultra-radical dismantling of the State that brings a tear to the Libertarian eye. Why the fuck he didn’t subtitle it, “How Liberty was strangled in the cradle and how we can achieve it”, or something similar, I wish I knew. The myth of a libertarian past seems to have been borrowed, like most European political discourse, from America.

    [1] The word “libertine” has a proud history; it was coined to describe the opponents of Calvin’s theocratic dictatorship in Geneva.

    [2] Associating with the Tea Party in the USA isn’t doing us any good at the moment either. Sarah Palin is about as much a libertarian as my goldfish is. They’re an anti-federalist[3] movement, which is a profoundly different thing.

    [3] Which means, in the USA, federalist, execpt the nation-statist Hamiltonians stole the “federalist” word first.

  24. Sean i do appreciate the libertarian stance on discussion.
    ive come to feel that only propertarian individualist anarchy can accommodate the pluralism necessary for the infinite variety of humanity (i dont mean multiculturalism i mean that even no two englishmen are exactly alike). retaining the model of the state, the concept of monopoly authority means that one ideology has to emerge – hence conservative libertarians railing against left libertarians, christian libertarians railing against libertines without end.
    i find it maddening that people so focussed on individual freedom can fail to take that one tiny extra step whereby there would be no need for disagreement. the nationalists can have their jingoistic residential compound, the fundamentalist christians can have their strictly heterosexual retail outlet, the classicists can run a railway with latin entrance exams for the passengers, syndicalists can try to prop up an economically impossible workshop, corporatists can try to sell a privileged legal system to an island of little people, the hedonists can invite other dangerous deviants round for a party and all these individuals would be responsible for the outcomes of their freedoms.
    how will anyone ever achieve any kind of liberty if we all split up and rant and rave by ourselves in the farthest reaches of blogger and wordpress?
    influencing politics is impossible. dominating politics is impossible. expecting coercive power to self regulate, limit and contract is hopeless. my only hope for liberty is that the state contains the seeds of its own destruction and that eventually there will be enough awareness of the alternatives that following one global meltdown enough people will realise they needn’t resurrect the parasite that was killing them.

    Ian i couldnt agree more. ive dropped the libertarian label for fear of being confused with the ‘ultra-conservative… Maoist wing of the Tory Party.” voluntarist, individualist, anarchist, im happy with. anarchy permits conservatism but conservatism seems to permit very little.

    for the record i do not subscribe to the legal theories of the freemen on the land. my point is – what is the alternative? i am genuinely asking this. what can be done? im not saying that short of any other suggestions we should start posting affidavits i just want to know what other libertarians think is the plan? perhaps i should buy Dr. Gabb’s book but im still clinging to a chronic failure of the state followed by the emergence of David Freidman’s Machinery of Freedom.

  25. The problem with a hope for a catastrophic callopse of the State due to its own contradictions is that there’s a likelihood the State will cling ever more violently to power until everything is destroyed.

    I’m increasingly drawn to the idea of abandoning hopes of libertarianism in one country, and turning to the new supranational political structures, as our Enemy have. The European Convention On Human Rights is actually a pretty good Constitutional basis for liberty, if they can be forced to strike out the numerous qualifying clauses, the “you have a right to free speech… except [numerous exclusions]” type stuff.

    I don’t think we can realistically hope for an end to governance or government at this stage in human history. We’re simply too early; like somebody demanding a secular society in the 14th century. The prize- which will not come until we are long dead- should perhaps be Global Liberty, since we are historically in the period of the construction of something novel- a global civilisation. It may be better to concentrate on influencing the form and nature of that global civilisation than attempting to impede its formation, which is probably a hopeless task. Pan-European (for instance) organising to constrain the European Government and deny it unrestrained power may be a reasonable- though of course difficult to achieve- objective. To achieve, e.g. a Europe-wide guarantee of unrestrained free speech, limiting both the central government and provincial governments from imposing censorship, would be a Big Win. Since many of the most powerful areas of Europe are more socially liberal than sad little Britain, it may be a quite pragmatic goal.

  26. Captain: “The ramifications of that are that we can now step away from taxes and fines and point the finger at our fictions.”

    Isn’t it true that your fiction also owns your house, car, earnings from employment or self employment, and almost every other bit of property in your life?

  27. Good points from IanB and will!

  28. Tom,

    Yes, that would be true.

    I think I know where you are heading with the question and I freely confess that I do not have a suitable answer.

    What I have learnt is that contracts-all contracts-must have certain components.

    1. Offer and Acceptance
    2. Equal consideration
    3. Full disclosure
    4. Two wet signatures (exceptions to this are electronic signatures & verbal contracts)
    5. Legality

    The most vital of these is full disclosure. Both parties must be aware of all benefits/responsibilities when entering into a contract.

    I mention this because we are all roped into the fabled Social Contract. It is an agreement between us and the state. If the state have not given full disclosure (in this case, that we all have a legal fiction) then the old maxim “Once a contract is breached, it is ended” swings into play.

    As I have said here and elsewhere, the ramifications are huge. That is why it is an important ruling for all of us.

    On investigation, it turns out that I do not own my house. The Crown does. I do not own my car. The DVLA does. (I am merely the registered keeper). Every time you register something-your children, your car, your shotgun, for example-title passes to whoever you registered the item with.

    The law, and statutes (for they are very different) are a minefield.

    Well worth creeping over though. Some finds are quite incredible.

    CR.

  29. Hi Ranty.
    Its been a while since we spoke, under an ID I can no longer remember. I once pointed you to a link to a US state that had challenged the need to drive with a licence.Remember me now?
    Anyway good to hear about the Hayes case. I will be following it, and coming here for updates. all the best mate.

  30. I do recall.

    Thanks again for that link. It is another fascinating case, and you have reminded me that I need to follow up on it.

    We don’t need Licenses here either, nor road tax, or even speeding fines.

    Magna Carta 1215 Ch. 39 refers.

    Stay well,

    CR.

  31. IanB as ever a very good point (i find your points more convincing than most at samizdata etc). ive been in denial of the futility of demands for ‘libertopia now’. your analogy is bang on. me banging on about friedman is like a serf trying to overthrow the catholic church with a copy of the origin of species. i might swap the contemporary political discourse for an alternate pursuit of heinlein-esque fiction.

    CR and anal – i seem to remember it was georgia. could be wrong. they were either going to examine the US or the georgian state constitution which may have said something like ‘there shall be no impediment to free travel of the highways’ which some of their legislators interpreted as meaning government could not impede free use of the highways by licencing. so far ive read more into privatised commercial roads than common law unrestricted type of thing but im willing to be persuaded.

  32. Can someone provide a link to the court case records or citation? Thanks.

  33. all he wants is simple due dilagence and disclosur,
    i dont get what is “freeman on the land” about this, contract law is simple, where is the obligation, show the correct sentence structure so he can verify or determine his obligation,…. read my link I did this for a whole township

    http://benjamindoolittle.com/blog/notice-of-declaration-of-unincorporation-and-revocation-of-consent-to-be-governed/

  34. all he wants is simple due diligence and disclosure,
    i dont get what is “freeman on the land” about this, contract law is simple, where is the obligation, show the correct sentence structure so he can verify or determine his obligation,…. read my link I did this for a whole township

    http://benjamindoolittle.com/blog/notice-of-declaration-of-unincorporation-and-revocation-of-consent-to-be-governed/

  35. allegedly A NAME

    Captain: “The ramifications of that are that we can now step away from taxes and fines and point the finger at our fictions.”
    _______________
    tomsmith:Isn’t it true that your fiction also owns your house, car, earnings from employment or self employment, and almost every other bit of property in your life?
    _______________
    Actually nobody has title other than equitable title to any property.
    This is another aspect of the game that most don’t really get.
    This is why things can be seized so easily through forfeiture as the man actually has very little weight, unless the man renegotiates a better deal.
    This is often a challenge when dealing with the bureaucratic mindset as such still think they are Lords over all and above the Law. which is not the case.
    If we are not all equal under the Law then we have no “rule of Law”, but rather despotism which, “I think”, is not what most people would like (other than the privileged few at the top who have become completely corrupt and care not for matters such as Just government).

  36. Good points.

    I do not have all the answers. The thing that we all need to remember is that this is a fledgling movement and all the players (against us) have a vested interest in things staying exactly as they are.

    I don’t kid myself that I “own” my home. I merely bribed the former tenant with enough shekels to make her leave. I didn’t buy anything other than 15 years worth of debt. I even created the money (with my autograph) which the bank then “lent” back to me at interest. The money didn’t exist until my autograph appeared on their forms. One of these days I will ask them for a true accounting (which they cannot provide because they suffered no loss whatsoever) and I will then take them to court for fraud. It will cause a ruckus, but so what? It needs to be done.

    The law is not equal. It never was. And as that is the case, I want no part of it.

    CR.

  37. Pingback: Freemen of the Land Defence- Another Refuses Council Tax… | Centurean2′s Weblog

  38. C H Ingoldby is obviously one of those people who think Government debts are our debts.
    It therefore must be possible for that corner shop you bought a paper from. When it goes bust, they can come knocking on your door demanding you pay them wodges of money, or else.

    The trouble with this case. Surely, the legal fiction owns moneys & debts and the human owns receipted chattels. Maybe the strongest case is, there’s no such a person as a TOWN COUNCIL. So, MR. ROGER HAYES has to be represented by a human being in a likewise manner. The tough bit for the courts is creating joinder to the human. I know of a guy who hides under a few names.

    Same thing: The CSA owes like a £Bn, so they are transferring the assets to CMEC but not the debts. Then they will fold the CSA, so the debts will be written off “for value”.

    If Roger has all his chattels in his children’s name. Then no tax can be taken off or owed by him because he has nothing. Kids don’t pay taxes by law.(?)

  39. Andyj, thank you for clearly and explicitly demonstrating exactly how illogical, meaningless and disjointed the arguments of the ‘Freemen’ are.

  40. Not so Mr. Ingoldby. I believe if the law is applied properly and heeded then cases can be resolved until proper lawful considerations are upheld.

    But at the end of the day “might is right” so if Mr. Judge says shite – its upheld if not proven to be shite. Unlike the Muslims in North Africa, we are a lost, disparate, scared peoples that are easily programmed. Our individuality is our weakness.

    That and the Fabian quislings who try to dismay the beast from within.

  41. Andyj, you make a series of false assertions and use them as the basis of faulty logical reasoning.

    You state that i believe something that i have never stated. You then use this false statement to make an illogical comparison with a different situation. You then make a series of random and incorrect claims about ‘legal fictions’ and you then even claim that children are somehow legally exempt from taxation.

    Your arguments are based on false premises. They are incoherent, random and illogical. You jump from irrelevant aside to irrelevant aside without even an attempt at making connections.

    And you somehow think that you’re going to win court cases in which you claim to not be subject to Parlimentary law. People like you are a joke.

  42. You are not here as a Libertarian. In fact, you simply spout.Who else disagree’s with me?

    Therefore I summarised you as a gubmint shill. Anyone else disagree with me?

    The “person” as a contractual device and the human being are recognised in court and it has got many people off the hook. Anyone else disagree with me?

    So your assumed diatribe over my grammatical abilities is simply a red herring. Like all your other incoherent posts with no substance.

  43. Oh dear.

    Statements such as ‘The “person” as a contractual device and the human being are recognised in court and it has got many people off the hook.” are so obviously and stupidly wrong as to clearly demonstrate the complete lack of any merit whatsoever of your ‘ideas’.

    Oh, and I never criticised your grammar, I only criticised your false assumptions, false premsies, faulty reasoning, complete lack of intellectual integrity and your falsehoods.

  44. Well its worked. So live with it.

  45. It’s never ‘worked’. (except maybe in your delusional fantasies)

  46. I smell bigot.

    Tell us, what is your job?

  47. My job is government shill. I am paid to try and disrupt the noble and heroic freeman whose brilliant legal theories are about to overthrow the established order.

    Obviously.

  48. Well, we have two options here:

    It’s true. Case closed.

    It’s a lie. Case closed.

  49. Indeed, always excluding the third option, It’s sarcasm. At your expense.

  50. Don’t forget mirror psychology.

    At yours for being an arse.

  51. Of course, i must be ‘mirroring’ your being a government agent.

    Suddenly it all makes sense.

  52. To what ends?

  53. Both of them.

  54. Answer. To what ends?
    You made a statement about me, now answer this ‘statement of facts’ and motivation.

  55. Both ends.

  56. Then answer your statement.

  57. Answering a statement? What an odd thing to do.

  58. It is for you.
    Everything has a reason unless you live in a delusional world.

    So backtrack and answer the statement you made of me and the reason you think that. Then answer yourself because my stance is counter-productive to what you accused me of.

    There. No you have no excuse but to answer your accusation with your reasoning.

  59. Is English your second language?

  60. Third. Now answer it.

  61. That explains quite a lot.

    For instance it explains why you think a statements needs answering as opposed to questions.

  62. My reasonable question. I want an answer from your factless, pointless, ad-hominem statement.

    Attempting to invert the reasoning or any of those futile old tricks don’t work with me. You are here for a purpose and reading above you have been slammed down quite well. So you return when the dust has settled and come back for more

    So stop squirming. Answer it.

  63. I’m looking forward to you answering your factless, pointless, ad hominen statement.

    I’m looking forward to you answering your baseless and factually incorrect statements.

    How about leading by example?

  64. “C H Ingoldby | 27 February, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    Of course, i must be ‘mirroring’ your being a government agent.

    Suddenly it all makes sense.”

    A Gov. agent… Really.
    Throwing the pre-proven fact you were mirroring your psychology onto others and assumed it would be so on me. Thus making yourself wrong by your own admission.
    Another fail in your logic.

    Why the hell do you haunt all those political sites when you have no idea what half of them are are really up to and who are their real masters.

    You squirm and twist about like a Fabian attempting to lie straight in bed.

  65. I’m loving this.

    Seeing the irrational excuse for the mental working of a delusional fantasist laid out for all to see. You twist yourself up in illogical nonsense, you wriggle like a snake and then you accuse me of that. Classic.

    Mirroring indeed!

    BTW, still waiting for you to substantiate any of your claims………………

  66. I’ve even copied and spelt out what you said, that you cannot answer for!!!
    And you attempt to throw it back in my face.
    That is a sign of mental illness.

    Maybe I’m being hasty here. I ask you to note the quotes. It is what you wrote earlier, pasted ad verbatim.

  67. Gosh, i’m mentally ill because i can’t answer a statement!

    And there was me thinking that it was questions that are answered, not statements.

    Still, if you want, you can still attempt to substantiate any of your claims and statements. Your ad hominen slurs and your claims of legal successes. Still waiting………..

  68. Yes, a statement you made. You cannot answer it.
    you called me deluded. I’m calling you a troll and a liar.

  69. I’ve just read all of this. I must say, C H Ingoldby’s instincts are correct. At its roots, the Freeman of the Land movement makes a tiny bit of sense. But as soon as any of its advocates go into any level of legal detail whatsoever, they get things hopelessly wrong. It’s genuinely difficult to know where to start. I can’t imagine anyone with any real legal knowledge would offer them any sort of support. I don’t mean to offend, but they genuinely make absolutely no legal sense. Other than confusing magistrates (who themselves aren’t legally qualified) with a ‘smoke and mirrors’, confused set of arguments, their attempts will only end them up in jail ultimately. I imagine some government bodies have given up chasing a few Freemen simply because it isn’t worth the bother, but, people: follow their advice at your peril. A simple fine will eventually turn into a few weeks in the slammer or a contempt of court conviction. I am a barrister and have practised criminal and civil law for years, and their legal arguments are utter tosh.

  70. CH Ingoldby is a dickhead. And so are you if you support anything this deranged man says.

    If you really are a barrister, please let me know where your offices are located so that I never, ever, use your services. Even by accident.

    Contempt? I have nothing BUT contempt for you, and the idiots that purport to be serving justice.

    Tell me, what kind of contempt are you discussing here?

    Criminal? There has to be an injured party, and the judge is accepted to have broad enough shoulders to withstand ANY insult.

    Civil? Bring me the contract. With two wet signatures where I agreed NOT to offend a man-made thing. A thing which, by its very creation, cannot be offended.

    If you really are a barrister, God help us all.

    You sir, are a numpty of the first water.

    CR.

  71. A completely emotional response. Calm down for a moment and actually consider what you’re writing.

    I referred to contempt of court. There are numerous videos on YouTube in relation to Freemen making arguments on jursidiction in magistrates’ courts, such as this one from the Freedom Rebels’ Network: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0 Aside from illegally recording court proceedings, an attempt to act like this in the Crown Court would most likely land you with a criminal charge of contempt of court for interfering with court proceedings. Blackstone’s Criminal Practice (a leading text used in court by lawyers and judges alike) at B14.86 indicates as follows: “A deliberate disruption of proceedings in court, whether staged by persons involved in those proceedings, or by demonstrators etc. may be punished as contempt, and in most cases will be dealt with by the court acting of its own motion.” In reality, a Crown Court judge would almost certainly see someone acting in this way as deliberately disrupting proceedings. Any decent criminal lawyer will tell you that persisting with even behaviour falling well short of that shown in the video is likely to land you with a contempt charge. Your statement that “There has to be an injured party, and the judge is accepted to have broad enough shoulders to withstand ANY insult” is nonsense.

    There is a proliferation of such instructive videos and articles on the Internet and I consider it extremely irresponsible to encourage people to act in this manner, which is likely to, at best, set the court against them from the off and, at worst, end them up in prison.

    Look at the video. Any decent criminal lawyer will tell you that much of the titles and narration mean absolutely nothing. At some points, the narrator is talking complete legal gibberish and, at others, he is simply stating the law entirely incorrectly. The video aside, most articles by Freemen I have read use similar legal gibberish that, in reality, means nothing. These arguments will get you nowhere in a court of law.

    A typical mistake Freemen make is to try to apply principles of courtroom law (civil contracts etc) to legal philosophy, i.e. arguments in relation to consent to be governed. For people to be governed subject to the country’s laws, including statute law, does not require their signature on a piece of paper. I completely understand why some people would say: ‘I didn’t consent to this law; why should I be goverened by it?’ But consent is not required in relation to each and every individual law. Consent is only required insofar as the government needing general consent to its rule so that it is considered legitimate. If everyone rose up against the government’s rule, it would not be considered legitimate and general consent would essentially be withdrawn. This is not something written down in the books; it is not a matter of black-letter law. This is quite simply the practical reality of our situation.

    Every law is man-made. Even the legal gibberish many Freemen spout is man-made. They are simply trying to replace a set of rules that has been made up and developed over centuries with one they have just made up themselves. Unfortunately for them, the centuries-old set of rules is recognised by the vast majority of the population and the entire judiciary.

    Captain Ranty, talk about numpties and ‘God help us’ all you like. The real ‘God help us’ is in relation to people who (1) know little to nothing about the law, (2) pretend to know a lot and (3) attempt to lead and educate others who face criminal charges or civil penalties and know little to nothing about the law themselves.

  72. Useful info. Fortunate me I discovered your site unintentionally, and I am shocked why this coincidence did not happened earlier! I bookmarked it.

  73. Mr. Gibbons.
    You mention many things like its illegal to record court proceedings. Why should that be if they have nothing to hide citizen? After all, there is a man in court who is paid to supposedly record everything.

    Mr. Gibbons.
    Why does the Magi/Judge have to gain joinder to the fiction and the man AND include the title of the person?

    Mr. Gibbons.
    The trouble with the courts is they never hold people as equals. Often it is heard and known magistrates make up the ‘laws’ as they go along. One friend of mine was disallowed to represent his father as his McKenzie through threat of imprisonment.

    Law should never mean “Might is Right”.

    Mr. Gibbons.
    There are FOI letters asking whether any “officer” can take a child from the parents if that child does not have a birth (berth) certificate. The emphatic answer is “no”.
    The police for instance cannot tow away or crush a badly parked car if that car has diplomatic plates or belongs to a country with no shared database.
    You register the *whatever* and you give away legal title in law for them to do with it whatever they wish.

    My view of this; the sword cuts both ways.

    Mr. Gibbons.
    It is you who is confusing legal philosophy with the mechanics of law. At one time they needed a framework of law but all men were equal under God so they invented the person, the registered name of the business.

    Mr. Gibbons.
    I suggest you learn law. how about brushing up with “Creditors in Commerce”?

    As goes CH Ingoldby, all he has done is make an obvious statement that does not cover anything:
    “Parliamentary Law (statutory law) is not restricted to purely Admiralty Law. As that strange and false conceit is the basis of your entire ‘Freeman’ legal mumbo jumbo, it therefore all falls apart.”

    It’s ALL Statute law! It’s ALL trade law!!! A statute law is made from a “Bill”.
    A bill is by its very definition, anti-Libertarian.