Freemen of the Land: A Barrister Writes


Note: I do not think the Freemen of the Land should be dismissed out of hand. They are the only semi-libertarians around prepared to gather and make a fuss. Even so, their legal arguments are, to put it mildly, in need of development. Here is a comment on an earlier posting about the FotL. I think everyone will agree that it is important enough to move to the front page. SIG

Freemen of the Land: A Barrister Writes
by F. Gibbons

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 d eliberately 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 governed 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.

About these ads

98 responses to “Freemen of the Land: A Barrister Writes

  1. http://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/comment-is-free-but-woo-is-sacred/

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/11/15/freemen-of-the-dangerous-nonsense/

    These people are making a mockery of the libertarian “movement”. At best they disrupt the functioning of the state but at worst they result in opponents of the state being thrown into jail because they have been bamboozled into believing a few magic words can save them from paying taxes.

  2. Oh, it’s total woo. But the interesting thing perhaps is that if enough people start believing it, it’ll start being true, as well.

  3. It is true that the judges probably would penalise what they saw as disruptive behaviour – but F. Gibbons did not explain how, without disrupting the court, it is possible to obtain the court’s recognition that proceedings are governed by common law, not statute law. The point of asking the judges to read out their oaths of office is to remind them that the common law is the fundamental law of the land. Parliament’s right to even be convened is only a right given in common law.

    I am not too sure about claiming that “Mr. Stephen Barry” referred to a legal fiction, represented in that court case by a piece of paper, and that the actual Stephen of the family of Barry (who regards attempts to call him Stephen Barry as an attempt to force him to incorporate himself as a legal person for the purpose of statute law) is just “the lay adviser of the piece of paper called Mr. Stephen Barry”.

    Probably there is some history behind this – in that surnames had to be established before the state could impose taxation systems on us. However the wider point made by the Freemen, that there is a distinction between “the law of the land”, ie the Common Law, and statute legislation, much of which amounts to a full-scale repudiation of the Common Law that the queen has sworn to uphold, is probably more interesting.

    The idea that Parliament can do anything it likes is interesting. There is no point in citing 19th century constitutional experts on this point – as they were just people giving their opinions in books and their opinions have no legal force. Parliament does what is likes, and the judges, public-sector employees with a vested interest in the system, is likely to back Parliament, but the whole constitutional setup is circular. Parliament says it can do what it likes – but we only have its say-so for that – how can it determine its own powers? Who gave it the right to do so?

    Parliament’s rights are only whatever the common law held it to be – and any statute legislation by parliament extending parliament’s own rights has to be viewed in that light – a body that has to proclaim its own powers fails to establish its right to make such a proclamation in the first place.

    The judges – well, what are the powers of judges? Where are they written down? I think you will find, F. Gibbons, that you cannot describe the powers of judges without reference to the common law, the law of the land since time immemorial. Judges may define their own powers, but you would still need to show what right they had to make such a definition. And we have no written constitution (and the writing of a constitution would suffer from the disability that the common law permits no such written document to override the law of the land).

    No matter how you slice and dice it – and F. Gibbons you make your living from statute law, and so you are “in the system” – the powers of the Queen, of Parliament, of the courts – are only common-law powers, and any attempt by any of these to extend their powers needs to follow, and not precede, a demonstration that they have the right, under the common law, to do so.

    Other countries have written constitutions – although they all suffer from the defect that, in order to recognise the constitution and the laws, you have to accept that the original body that drew up the constitutions had a right to do so, or that the method of passing the constitution was lawful. In the end, the legal structure of nearly every country is based on the assertion – the pure assertion – of the right of a legislature to make laws, whether because it is democratically elected (an irrelevance, constitutionally speaking) or based on some other support.

    Gibbons, we don’t have the rule of law any more in this country. Our membership of the EU is profoundly illegal – show me, with reference to the common law, where the Queen in Parliament had the right to pass our sovereignty abroad! You would have an easier time showing that doing so was treason! You could also easily show that assenting to the European Communities Act was an action fully deserving of the death penalty on the part of Elizabeth II, so clearly did it contradict her Coronation Oath. So what the courts are prepared to uphold as law, and what is our law of the land, are two different things. The problem is that we do not impeach and hang judges in this country.

    Take for example Mr Justice Laws, or some such title he gives himself – he has held that the Weights and Measures bill of 1985, despite receiving royal assent, was not law, because it contravened the European Communities Act 1972! Yet, he agreed numerous times during the court case that no Parliament can bind its successors. When it came to handing down his judgment he decided – made up on the spot – that no “constitutional” act can be repealed, except by express language, although the handing down of this judgment was a serious criminal offence, in that there was no precedent for this, and no justification in Common Law for this.

    Have you noticed, Gibbons – none of the judges have – that Laws’ judgment means that no law that does not expressly repeal the Bill of Rights and yet appears to contradict its provisions can be legal. He listed constitutional acts in that judgment, including the Bill of Rights. He did not even ask whether the European Communities Act 1972 contravened his own principle by impliedly repealing parts of previous constitutional acts – unless he left that as a deliberate timebomb in British law – if a 1985 act may be struck down by the courts because it did not expressly repeal a 1972 act, what about the 1972 act? If it can be shown as not expressly repealing provisions of a 1688 act and other 17th century acts, what is its status?

    Our law has become a dog’s breakfast. Too many ad hoc judgments to appease political masters. Gibbons, are you aware the 1688 Bill of Rights does not permit judges to question parliamentary proceedings. So, does the Human Rights Act, which claims to give judges the right to strike down Acts of Parliament where they conflict with foreign edicts, expressly repeal that provision of the 1688 Bill of Rights? I think you will find it doesn’t. So why are the judges questioning parliamentary proceedings? To even investigate the legality of acts of parliament in line with human rights and EU laws amounts to an offence under the Bill of Rights, which has not been expressly repealed.

    So, you may be a barrister, but your knowledge of the law is not as hot as you think, although undoubtedly your interpretation is the one used by self-aggrandising judges, which may be the only relevant thing when actually standing before a traitor who intends to apply unlawful “laws” to you.

    Gibbons, you state that the narrator in that video is talking gibberish, but you seem ignorant of the development of the courts. Are you aware – and if not, what are you doing working as a barrister? – that in the 12th century there were a number of courts that could be used to obtain justice, including baronial courts, royal courts and ecclesiastical courts? The process of establishing royal courts as a nationwide authoritative source of justice was a long and difficult one. Simply put, the common law does not assign untrammelled jurisdiction to the royal courts of justice, although it might be convenient for judges if that were the case. The point being made is that the common law was the law of the land, and statute law was for more extraneous issues, such as the law of the sea or the then developing commercial law. There was not concept that Parliament, whose right to sit was only on the basis of the common law, could pass numerous unnecessary items of legislation overturning the common law on longstanding issues.

    How did we get from the situation 800 years ago where we did not have to accept the royal courts’ jurisdiction to the one we have today? Unless you can comment on that, Gibbons, you don’t have an argument.

    You say that individual consent is not required for every act of parliament. But what Stephen Barry was referring to was the right to be judged on the basis of English Common Law, and not to be subject to the dictates of courts that refuse to uphold the common law, and accept the intrusion of parliamentary edicts, contrary to common law, into areas of life that already have long-standing common law precepts. “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.” Well, I don’t regard the government as legitimate, because of its operation in violation of the common law. I would hang every judge in the land if I got the chance.

    You say, “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”. Oh, ho ho! You finally admit that we don’t have a written constitution? And that the powers of the Queen, Parliament and the courts are limited to what is given them in the common law? You haven’t invested any thought at all in this question.

    Gibbons, you claim, “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.” Actually, no. The Freeman are trying to go back to the centuries-old Common Law. Your protestations are absurd – show me a single judge who recognises that centuries-old common law precepts override statute law and EU law – just name one! You can’t do it.

  4. Ian B and I are in agreement on this. The FoL people are talking legal gibberish – but, if enough people say it’s true, it may become true. Those magistrates and court officials looked impressively confused.

  5. What is the gibberish?
    Where are they in error–in the matter of the actual laws?.
    I looked at the links on the comment by Richard. Nowhere is there a detailed refutation just smug law-dog bollocks on the lines of “its all shite”. Actual refutation of the reasoning of the Freeman is nowhere found. The claim that the FOTL are nutters is exactly what those who make a fine living from the present system (of statue–and “administrative”–ie by dictat alone–law) will say.

  6. The actual constitution of a country is always what the various groups comprising the ruling class decide it should be – subject to its passive acceptance by the ruled.

    The current situation is that England is an absolute despotism tempered by a moderation of the ruling class that is largely inherited from the past, and partlyrequired by the treaty foundations of a global cartel of ruling classes.

    Bearing this in mind, the idea that there are Laws “out there” that the authorities have hidden but MUST observe is a nonsense – especially when these Laws are not evidenced in the historical or legal record. Therefore, the FotL arguments are utterly stupid.

    However, it may be that believe in these non-existent laws will cause enough of the ruled to withdraw their passive acceptance. If this should happen, these Laws begin to take on flesh, and the ruling class must agree to take part in a dialogue on how the country is to be governed.

    This is why I believe we must take the FotL people seriously. Their absolute commitment to the Common Law intimidates the authorities. When did we libertarians ever do that?

  7. Your argument is flawed Sean.

    I agree with you about the ultimate reality. When the chips are down the ruling class will employ violence without regard to “law”. However, all throughout history,even in times more brutal than these, the ruling classes have still shown a concern to try and legitmise their antics.They have tried to establish God (or something) etc as being their sponser,–what’s Kiplings line?
    “Holy God or Holy King or Holy People’s Will”

    It is very hard to run a society on the premise of muscle alone. The rulers and their goons are always massively outnumbered.
    In a society like ours, supposedly “free” and democratic, the bullshit is even
    more needed. “This is a Govt of laws” “this is a nation set thickly about with Laws”.
    The actions of the Freemen question the internal consistancy of the state’s BS. You can look on it as consistancy with the “rules” of a play.For the play to run everybody must stick with the script.The Freemen question and use their own rules against them. They may well be correct in strict legal terms–none of those criticising them, you included, have shown where they are wrong, internal to the play, so to speak. The fact that there is a larger reality outside the play, does not alter the fact that the state needs the play.
    Lets take something going on now. On Guido’s blog there is a piece asking why that slime Chris Huhne has not been charged after six months( all the worse when “justice” has been speeded up for rioters). We all know why, because Huhne is one of the ruling class and the CPS are pissing their pants at the thought of taking him to court. The most likly outcome is that the puke will be let off with some loophole. However, we also know that there will not be a press release saying “Chris Huhne MP is a member of the Ruling classes and as such, does not have to obey piddling little laws which are only for plebs like you lot.” , Because that would be a brazen admission of the true state of affairs. If the Freemen can beat them at their own game and force the state to admit that the rule of law is a con then they will have done good service indeed.

  8. Sean, you may be write, but I think it is difficult to deny we are ruled in a way nowadays that previous generations of Englishmen would have believed was unlawful. Many of the stipulations in the American Constitution are merely a codification of what was understood to be the Common Law. Those principles were not hidden, or anything.

    Churchill thought Magna Carta would be the battering ram with which the English would demand back their rights – you could argue it is just a feudal document, but as you rightly stated, once people view it as a timeless statement of the Common Law it attains a new authority that allows us to prise apart the constitutional basis of the rule of the new class…

  9. I meant right not write – excuse my idiocy when trying to bang out a message.

  10. The ‘Freemen’ are an embarrasment who by their foolish gibberish set back genuine arguments for liberty. They sound and act like nutters and they will garner no public sympathy with their bizarre nonsense.

    Libertarians should take great care not to be tarred with the same brush as those fantasists.

  11. What Ho Ingoldby.

    “They sound and act like nutters…”

    Fashion trumps Freedom now does it?.

    Still waiting for actual non-”selfevidential” refutation of their beliefs.

  12. Nothing to do with fashion, rather that they are delusional and sound it.

    Their arguments are not based on any principle of freedom but rather on a wrong intrepretation of the law. Their arguments and speeches display all the traits of flat earther style nutters in their ever more elaborate and delusional attempts to explain away reality.

    And their legal arguments have been comprehensively demolished repeatedly, I really can’t be bothered to repeat it all again for your benefit.

  13. But you can be bothered telling me I’m wrong and you are right. Not demonstrating by presentation of argument/evidence. Just telling.

    You don’t need to repeat anything. I can read for myself. Just point out where these “demolitions” are to be found on the web.

  14. “Every law is man-made.” Are there no such things as natural rights? Does all law simply come from the barrel of a gun?

    This article is bullshit with zero substantive content, composed entirely of argument from authority.

  15. Thank you to those commenters who defended Freemen.

    We are on a hiding to nothing here. Any Libertarian who insists the state is doing everything wonderfully is delusional. Did anyone seriously expect this piece to be unbiased? The man himself is a barrister, allegedly. It is in his interest for the status quo to remain. For ever.

    I think it is high time Freemen actively disassociated themselves from libertarians. There are no friends to be found here. Libertarians will discuss their notion of freedom (endlessly), but God forbid one of them should actually test it out practically. Freemen (and women, the term is generic), actually do put themselves in harms way as they test the theory in court.

    I hesitate to draw attention to my own blog, but I will make an exception.

    All of you involved, in any way, with the judiciary, (and all of those that think they know how this all works), should read this:

    http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/11/all-british-courts-are-illegal.html

    Although written as an affidavit, the overwhelming evidence it contains can stand on its own as a damning indictment of just how illegal our court system is.

    Read it, and be terrified.

    Your days in court, as pretenders, is over. If I have my way, you will all sit in gaol for several years while you think about the perversity that you are party to. You are no less criminals than the bewigged and for that, you must be punished.

    The jig is up.

    CR.

  16. I see.

    I see nothing.

    10 hours later and NONE of you barristers, lawyers, or judges have anything to say?

    Sean can tell us how many (and who) have viewed this topic.

    Bur will he? Will he name names? Will he tell us who viewed and who scurried? Too Liberfuckingtarian for you?

    I hoped he would, but I suspected he would not.

    The linked piece takes 20 minutes to read, and around 1 minute to assimilate. For a professional, it would be a lot less.

    Why so quiet, ye belligerent ones? Ye gobshites. Ye purveyors of the truth.

    Not so fucking loud now, are you?

    Where are you, Ingoldby? Where are you, Gibbons? And where, by Christ, is the sainted Ian B?

    You bunch of hypocrites. Make an appearance, damn you.

    CR.

  17. ONLY law is do no harm.
    F*ck you statutes and by-laws ………

  18. Captain Ranty,

    We don’t like the tone of your posting, or the language you use. By all means express your disapproval of libertarians, and even of named posters on this blog. However, we require greater moderation of language.

    We are one of the few blogs outside your own movement willing to look at the Freemen of the Land arguments, and to discuss these. But, if you cannot tolerate criticism as well as sympathetic interest, you are debating on the wrong blog.

    You are welcome to post here in defence of your legal opinions. But you must adopt a very different mode of presentation.

    Sean Gabb
    Director
    The Libertarian Alliance

  19. Sean,

    I apologise for any language that may have caused offence. I am extremely passionate about this. This is not a hobby for me, but a way of life.

    However:

    I don’t particularly care if you never mention us again.

    The tone of this article is neither sensitive, sympathetic, nor mindful of the risks we take. You do us no favours. If you consider this article to show us in anything but a negative light I would prefer it if you never, ever mentioned us again. (Not that I speak for all Freemen, you understand, this is just a personal request).

    At one time I was rather pleased to call myself a Libertarian. I was on the verge of joining, and lending my wholehearted support to your movement. I convinced myself that it was the way forward. And then I read of the disdain CH Ingoldby had for us, and more recently this disgustingly biased piece by F Gibbons, and I decided that you were narrow-minded fools. I have offered you all the proof required that British courts are a pretense wrapped up in tomfoollery surrounded by a gimmick. And not one of your vaunted supporters replied. Not even the author himself.

    For him I hold nothing but contempt. This article was written by a drone. A statist with everything to lose. I would have been surprised if he couched his argument any other way. Ho hum. Nothing new here at all. Zero marks for originality. Regarding his unthinking supporters, I am also dismayed. I expected more. So much more.

    They dismay, and for a “free thinking group”, they disappoint. Bitterly.

    Not you, (I quite like you), but those who pretend to be libertarians do your movement no good. No good at all.

    I offer you a promise: leave me and my people alone, and I will do the same for you.

    If not, (and this is a promise, not a threat), I will lambast you every chance I get.

    i have a small but growing readership and I can invoke disharmony, if I wanted to. We Freemen, however, are well used to strong criticism and we can bear it.

    Can you?

    CR.

  20. This is ridiculous. We will comment on any public issue that takes our interest, and we will form such opinions as we think just and reasonable. You are welcome to join in this process. At the same time, we insist on certain standards of civility that you have so far not tried to reach.

    If, when I turn my co9mputer back on tomorrow morning, I find another vulgar tirade from you, I will confer with our Blogmaster.

  21. LOLFOOL Rebellion seems more cult like with every posting of Ranty et al.

  22. Fair do’s.

    I will do likewise.

    Although I do find it odd that some of your posters can ad hom to their hearts content and you say nothing. So much for parity,

    I did not write any vulgarity in my last comment and I am surprised that you saw any. Please highlight the vulgar parts for me.

    CR.

  23. Ah, SBC,

    I wondered from whence you came.

    All is clear now.

    Stay away from my blog, you nasty little troll. If you had come with a clear agenda I would have engaged you readily. But to sneak in the way you did? Tsk tsk.

    Underhand. Slimy, even.

    CR.

  24. “Stay away from my blog”

    I have done so, as I said I would, and I will continue to do so. However some of your own acolytes do like to keep me informed of your latest obscene, knickers-in-a-twist, delusional diatribes (such as on this site).

  25. What a one sided little shithole this blog is, with the likes of SBC wielding his wooden spoon and the posters so fucking angelic they can do no wrong yet they can label whomever they please as nutters. Someone like Ranty comes in and tells it like it is and the whole fucking sad lot run away and hide behind Sean. Fuck you all you freaks.

  26. To be fair to the Captain, he didn’t start the fight. Check out C H Ingoldsby’s comments for instance:

    “The ‘Freemen’ are an embarrasment … foolish gibberish … nutters … bizarre nonsense…. fantasists … they are delusional … flat earther style nutters”

    If someone’s being slagged off in this manner, the expectation must surely be that they will respond in kind.

  27. The real shame is that we all have a common enemy in the state, and a common cause being ‘live and live’. These type of bust ups will in no way further our aims or attract new recruits to either the freeman or the libertarian causes – both of which I believe share much the same ultimate goals and have an awful lot in common!

  28. A “freeman” quite simply is someone who wishes to be left alone to live their life without the overt interference of an over bearing state excessively interfering in their “right” to a peaceful existence. Since 2007 when I started my freeman journey, I am proud to say that I have not paid one red cent of my hard earned money to any state organization nor have I succumbed to any state sponsored bullying/lies/threats (delete as appropriate) that endeavors to relieve me of the same. In short – fuck off and leave me alone and I promise to do the same. As Ranty does, I also live and breath this stuff and you know what; it works! Our Mr Gibbons is part of the system that pays his wages – we are truly independent, not part of the system and therefor not for sale…. We choose not to play their game and they hate us for it!

  29. As soon as I saw comments from SBC on your blog Ranty my hackles rose. I know the tone of that type – I must have a sixth sense for it – and so it has been proven.

    Perversely it is heartening to know that you are getting so close to the target that trolls like him/her are now trying to spread doubt – they know that people on the verge of throwing their lot in with the Lawful Rebels will retreat back onto the sidelines. But we are making headway – hence this ridiculous article.

  30. Sean .. I see you are pompous prick and by the tone of your writing quite possibly one of the establishment …

  31. “At some points, the narrator is talking complete legal gibberish and, at others, he is simply stating the law entirely incorrectly” .. The old sweeping generalisations in play.

    Define and explain exactly what is stated incorrectly and what is legal gibberish?

    Also explain if the magistrates/clerk had jurisdiction why did they not simply proceed with the case ?

    You gibberish defines you .. put up a solid credible statement or are you just a propaganda merchant ?

  32. Exactly if the law was simple .. fat cat judges and lawyers would be out of a job since anyone with a brain could present their case. Only those that understand gibberish may play the game .. The rest of the world has moved on yet the law remains entrenched in “ye olde traditions” ..

    The sooner all law is updated into simple “plain English” the better without ambiguous meaning the better !!!

  33. Well done folks. A whole bunch of people with one common enemy, all getting together to fight amongst themselves.

    You people make me sad.

  34. Bucko,

    I don’t think these guys see it that way.

    Look at this from Richard:

    “At best they disrupt the functioning of the state…”

    When I first got interested in libertarianism I thought that they were all for a small state, and that they felt the state intruded far too much into our lives, and yet here we have one of them pleading on behalf of that same state.

    Disrupting the functioning of the state? It is my obligation to do so. I am charged with responsibilities whilst I am in Lawful Rebellion. My instructions to “distrain and distress” are imprinted now and I awake each day and ask myself, “What can I do them today?”.

    But this guy, (is he a libertarian? I don’t know), wants us to back off?!

    It ain’t happening.

    CR.

  35. I would just like to point out that Capt Ranty and Freemen are actually doing something to advance the cause whereas C H Ingoldby has done nothing more than leave snide comments on blogs.

    I was the first candidate for the UK Libertarian party to stand for election. I didn’t ask anyones permission, I simply stated my intention and started the process of getting on the ballot and waited for the party to endorse me.

    If we simply sit around discussing the finer points of ideology on blogs we will never get anywhere.

    There is a mass of dissatissfaction out there, we, as libertarians should be at the forfront of leading and guiding it.

    When enough people start to actively take on the state their legitamacy will crumble. Freemen have made a start.

  36. Randy Vanwarmer

    What a bunch of pusillanimous playground paranoid pricks!
    IF SBC were actually ‘establishment’, he would have achieved his aim; to promulgate internecine bickering and divisiveness.
    From what I could infer from his question, he simply wanted clarity/proof, in clear terms.
    It wasn’t forthcoming.
    Good to push the boundaries, and test the law.
    It’s also OK to fail, regroup and challenge again.
    Keep up the good work, Ranty and chums, but don’t throw all your toys out of the pram if someone asks a legitimate question.

  37. I have never commented on this blog before and I do not post many comments on Captain Ranty’s blog. However, I have been following CR blog for quite some time and I like what I see, I find it entertaining and objective and normally straight to the point. The articles are well researched and I walk a similar road to the Captain. I do not class myself as a Freeman, Sovereign nor a Libertarian. I have never been one for “labels” as I have found that all they do is divide people.

    I try to look at things objectively and and then I question everything. I take what I read at face value and then perform my own research and reach my own conclusions. I know what works for me and what does not and I do not ram my views down anyone’s throat.

    I have used a combination of Freeman/Sovereign Philosophy alongside statutes to defend my corner. I have used Subject Access Requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 to great effect, I have also used Freedom Of Information requests to achieve a goal. I do not believe that there is a one size fits all silver bullett in any Philosophy nor Political Theory. We each must find our own way out of the current quicksand and, no, I am not being melodramatic. I have had my victories, half victories and losses in court and yet I keep learning, is this not the name of the game? Find out what does and does not work.

    I found to piece by the Barrister to be quite misleading and I would like to enquire what type of law he specialises in? Perhaps it is not constitutional law? I am not having a pop at your guest author, I am merely stating that his belief in the law might not match mine or any other readers for that matter, we can all have our own take on interpretation of any law and all have different viewpoints.

    I will finish by stating that I found it off putting to see a movement that is actively fighting back against the corrupt system that we live in as “nutters”.

    We shall gain nothing at all unless we can share our own learned experiences with each other on a level playing field.

  38. Finally, Captain Ranty says something I agree with!

    ”I think it is high time Freemen actively disassociated themselves from libertarians. ”

    Please follow your own advice. Libertarians are people who believe in the principle of individual freedom. ‘Freemen’ are people who believe in a delusional and wrong interpretation of the law. The two groups are quite different.

  39. Quasimodo Jones

    I’ll put some sounds on, there’s a bad atmosphere in here.

  40. Regarding some of the few legal propositions (as opposed to Ad Hom attacks) which this purported barrister makes, he is being economical with the truth.
    On the subject of the use of camera in court rooms, the defence of duress of circumstances neatly covers it. As Blackstone confirms, the subject is entitled to protect his life, liberties and property. Common Law liberties are at stake in corrupt Courts. Also, a corrupt non common law “Court” is no Court at all. It depends on the definition of “wilfully” using a camera. Gathering evidence and actions taken under the authority of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 also are justifications.
    The subject’s common law right to claim the protection of duress covers “disrupting” a Court as well and reverses the burden of proof to those who claim that their actions are lawful. Hence the emphasis on putting “Judges” on their oath. In one recent case involving Roger Hayes, the judge took the precaution of bringing his Warrant to court with him, incidentally.
    Then there is this “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…”.
    Here is what Archbold has to say about this:
    “28-115 (3) Circumstances in which the summary power (to arrest for contempt of Court) should be exercised:….
    Examples of urgency include where it is necessary to maintain the authority of the court, to prevent disorder, to enable witnesses to be free from fear and to protect jurors from being improperly influenced. However, “insults are best treated with disdain – save when they are gross and scandalous…”.
    In other words, Judges do have to accept a certain amount of criticism and Mr. Gibbons is being economical with the truth.
    Regards, John Hurst.

  41. John Hurst, just about every single statement of fact you have just made is wrong.

    The courts are courts, there is no distinction in law between ‘common law’ courts and ‘non common’ courts. There are simply law courts.

    Talking about the distinction of whether a camera is wielded ‘wilfully’ is a Clintonesque evasion and humbug.

    Clause 61 provided for the rights of 25 Barons to uphold the Magna Carta. Nothing to do with anyone bringing cameras into courts.

    The ‘claim of duress’ is simple gibberish.

    And finally, Mr Gibbon’s was completely and absolutely right on the fact that insults to the Judge can be treated as contempt of court and so punished. The ‘Freemen’ argument otherwise was yet another lie.

  42. CH, the fact that there are no remaining common law Courts is what Freemen, and others, are complaining about. Do try to keep up.

    You could try looking up the common law defence of duress. If you did so you would find that it applies to all offences except treason and murder.

    Regarding Ch 61 of Magna Carta 1215, if you were to look it up you would find that it includes this requiremment:
    “And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear…..”, That covers using cameras and challengeing Judges about their oaths.

    While you are at it, you could also find this in Chapter 61:
    “All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid.

  43. Sean,
    Can you confirm that this Ingoldsby is a real person?
    As CR has previously posted, one wonders about the credibility of Libertarianism if he is.

  44. John Hurst,
    “Regarding Ch 61 of Magna Carta 1215, if you were to look it up you would find that it includes this requiremment:”

    But as the Cl.61 was never incorporated into Law it’s all rather moot, isn’t it?

    “Magna Carta was actually revised a number of times—from 1216 until its last ratification in 1423—but the first time that Magna Carta was incorporated into British law was in 1225. By that time, a number of the clauses had been amended or specifically omitted—and Clause 61 was one of the clauses that was removed in 1216.” (http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2011/04/unlawful-rebellion.html)

    I know the Lolfool Rebels claim it required no ‘incorporation’ and could not have been amended but that is more a belief than a fact.

  45. I note there’s still no answer to Capt Ranty’s reply 21.11.11 at 1.34…

    Lots of abuse and subject changes since then… but no answers.

    I’d like to hear what the libertartians say…

  46. SBC, Magna Carta 1215 was decided by the god of battles, as all contested titles to land are. Furthermore it is confirmed to be a statute by Halsbury’s Laws of England 2010 Edition. That is because it was given by the sovereign as an exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It has the force of an Act of Parliament but cannot be repealed by a Parliament. The Declaration of Right of 1688 has the same history and authority.
    Regards, John Hurst.

  47. Sean,
    Do you remember this article of yours from 1999 and are you keeping your word?:
    Self Defence and the British Constitution.
    “…….But we also have a Constitution. It may not be digested into a single clear
    document that was intended to stand forever. But the materials that were digested into the American Constitution all had their origin in England. Granted, these materials are scattered through customs, charters, legal judgements, textbooks, and Acts of Parliament that accumulated over about eight centuries. But their existence is a matter of record. They are still a flat challenge to the modern conception of the British State as the instrument by which the untrammelled legislative supremacy of the House of Commons is expressed.

    Or they would be a flat challenge if they could be made generally available. At
    the moment, they are not available. Last summer, for example, an argument started on the Cybershooters List over the extent to which the Bill of Rights 1689 guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. Before this could be settled, it was necessary to circulate a copy of the Bill. I had an old copy in print too small for scanning. it was nearly a week before Bob Allen found or produced an electronic copy that could be circulated.

    Again, I am something of a legal antiquarian – yet I have never found a complete edition of Sir William Blackstone’s great Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the 1760s. These are one of the main influences on the American Constitution. They were a powerful force in shaping understanding of the English Constitution well into the 19th century. Yet I do not know of any modern edition. There are the State Trials, published in the early 19th century, with some highly valuable commentaries – these have never been reprinted, and they are only available in a few specialised libraries.

    In short, the primary materials from which an understanding can be gained of the English Constitution are unavailable to ordinary people. The intention of this Web
    Page is to make these materials available on the World Wide Web, and thereby to
    assist in the growing debate on the preservation of freedoms that we once took for granted, but which are now under growing threat.

    I said at the top of this Page that I would lay particular emphasis on the right
    to keep and bear arms for self-defence. This means that my first main job will be to publish the reports on and the parliamentary debates about the various Firearms Acts of the 20th century, together with any legal judgements, both ancient and modern, that shed light on the destruction of this particular freedom. But my ambitions are far wider, and are limited only by the amount of time that I can afford to spend in the relevant libraries and then at home with my scanner. I hope to make this the resource page for English constitutional thought. It may take some while, though, before hope and reality can be made to resemble each other.

  48. John Hurst, you are quite remarkably wrong on all the facts.

    Your quote of clause 61 of the Magna Carta gives no indication of any right whatsoever to bring a camera into court.

    There is no such thing and has nver been anysuch thing as a ‘common law court’ as opposed to a ‘law court’.

    The defence of duress is the principle that if you are forced, against your will to commit a criminal act then you can plead you are not responsible. Again, irrelevant to bringing a camera into a court.

    You simply make up nonsense, you state things that are factually untrue. You are either dishonest or delusional.

  49. CH. Ad Hom, again.

  50. John Hurst, firstly thank you for the polite reply. Secondly its my understanding from various commentators that the self same Halsbury says that only some 4 clauses of the 1215 MC are still ‘law’ (I’m a layman and write and think as such) , CL.61 NOT being one of them? Infact it seems that there are great reams of Freeman writings attacking Halsbury for being wrong on that account… so I’m mystified why you would dite Halsbury as ‘proof’ of CL.61 validity…

  51. The saddest thing about the original posting was the fact that it was phrased in purely insulting tones with absolutely no factual basis offered to refute comprehensively anything at all, the allusion to the video did not break the video down into a transcript that was given a ‘legal’ critique, phrase for phrase, which we may all have learned something from if it had been essayed/attempted. Thus the ad hominim attacks were less than helpful to the cause of righting what is wrong with the system that we all live in.
    I presume that Mr Gibbon thinks he is able to back up his remarks but signally failed to do so upon challenge by the posting from Captain Ranty. I have read much on the web from many sources and few make as much and such continuing sense as that which the Captain espouses. He is NOT a barrister and does not claim to be any kind of expert in the law but he is willing to put his ‘money where his mouth is’ and does so. Where might I ask is Mr Gibbons ‘money’ we have seen his ‘mouth’ but where please is the substance which he claims he has command of.
    If Mr Gibbons were to hand such rubbish in at court he would be disbarred and thrown out of the Law Society pretty damn sharpish I would think, if not slung into the cells for contempt (disturbing the proceedings of the court). He should know that emotional addresses do not sway the judgement of the courts (and the comment most frequently heard from judges to be “Show me the LAW!”), he in fact states that the video is showing such behaviour, and then promptly emulates the worst example of such behaviour in his scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges against the persons in question and Freemen, then finally as what appears to be an afterthought, cocks (what he fondly believes to be a clever) snook at the Captain before running off to whatever dream world he inhabits.
    The Captain was/is quite right to have called him out in no uncertain terms and demanded satisfaction from him forthwith, in the way of a proper critique with traceable authorities. These the snookcocker appears unable to find, blinkered as he is by the membership of a profession renowned for its protectionism and delight in obfuscation to the damnation of reason, logic and all outsiders.
    It is time that such people grew up and obtained a second braincell other than the one of self interest, also I find it very difficult to square the logic that ANY barrister can actually lay claim to being a libertarian unless it is done in the same way as wearing a fashion item like a Prada handbag to proclaim ones credentials to be in ‘the’ set!, for barristers are almost to a person inclined heavily towards the conservative, though I do allow that singularly unsuccessful ones who are unable to put forward cogent arguments and thus fail miserably to impress ‘chambers’ into giving them work may pretend to be libertarian to impress others who do not take the time or trouble to think for themselves.

  52. I’ve read this article and all the comments.

    As far as I can see Libertarians and Freeman are different sides of the same coin.

    The difference is, Libertarians ask permission for freedom, where as Freeman just do it.

    As for the guy who remarked that all courts are courts of Law, I almost spit my coffee out.
    Ever heard of the County Court Bulk Centre? …. No Judge or Clerke to be seen!! (don’t kid yourself that there is either).

    From what I can see, some of these Libertarians would die of shock actually going into a court to defend themselves. Heck, maybe even die on the spot questioning the authority of a traffic warden!

    Won’t be back.. no point replying to me ;)

    Regards All.

    Wobbly.

  53. SBC. All you have to do to check my authority is go to a law library and consult a copy of Halsbury’s. Vague references to “various commentators” and “Freeman writings” are not legal arguments. Any material from an authority is subject to challenge on a reasoned basis, as a barrister should know.

    There are 4 clauses remaining in Magna Carta 1297 which is an Act of Parliament and therefore subject to repeal. A bit of historical and legal research will show that our esential liberties can be logically derived from Ch. 29 of that Act which has identical wording to Ch. 39 of Magna Carta 1215.

    Incidentaly, large parts of Magna Carta 1297 were repealed in very dubious circumstnces in the mid 1960′s by the newly invented “Law Commission” and on Harold Wilsons watch. One of the prime suspects was one of Peter Mandelsons grandfathers. This was done after the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords decided off its own volition to stop applying precedent in its decision. Enquiries are in hand about this Judicial coup..

    Regards, John Hurst.

  54. John Hurst, As said I’m not any kind of legal professional – just a fairly simple man looking for simple straight forward answers to a question ie was the Cl.61 ever made into law (in the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ sense of the phrase) and if it so was, is it still ‘valid’ (again in the horribly sloppy layman’s understanding of such things)?

    To my , no doubt, simplistic and uninformed mind there should be a cut and dry easy answer but it seems otherwise…judging by my experience with Ranty. Your reply of “can be logically derived” only strengthens my impression that the whole Freeman thing is just ‘smoke and mirrors’ I’m afraid.
    Does Halsbury or any other recognised authority say that cl.61 is still ‘valid’ or not? Not what anyone assumes, thinks or believes to be true-just what does ‘the law’ actually say? Was cl.61 ever incorporated and is it still the law?

  55. @SBC, why do you think judges throw out the “show me the law” question so many times? Could it be that they do not know the law, or every law or perhaps they wish to deduce their own interpretation of the law or possibly they do know the difference between natural law, common law and statute law?
    As a Scotsman many English laws are not “supposed” to apply in the land known as Scotland, however they do. There has been a huge question and much debate over whether Scotland has or has had common law. Scottish law is based on Roman law and is thus quite different to English law, however with the Act Of The Union this changed and English law became the law that had supremacy. When cases are heard in Scotland and appeals made, the highest court in this land is the court od session. yet a further appeal could be made to the house of lords in the past and now the UK Supreme Court. and ultimately the European Court. Therefore the sovereignty of each country’s courts ultimately resides with the EU. We have all been duped. The Magna Carta and the Bill Of Rights have no bearing here at all, since the sovereignty of our country has been given away to a foreign power.

    Once our sovereignty is restored, and it will be, then the ancient laws of this land will prevail.

    Respect to all, your opinion is yours and if I require it then it shall be beaten from you. (sarc)

  56. SBC, Regarding Halsbury’s Laws of England and Magna Carta, all you have to do is ask someone who has access to it to check. I have seen with my own eyes that Magna Carta 1215 is described a a statute.

    Here is Ch. 29 of Magna Carta 1297 from legislation.gov.uk:
    “Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right…”.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX

    This is where Freeman get their name and their authority from. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

    Regarding the question of whether Magna Carta is “valid” in laymans terms, while you are checking out Halsbury’s look this entry up:

    “368. Relations of prerogative to common law and statute.

    The prerogative is thus derived from1 and limited by the common law, and the monarch can claim no prerogatives except such as the law allows2. In particular no prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute3, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject4.

    The courts have jurisdiction, therefore, to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogative5, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King6. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law7…”.

    Over to you.

    Regards, John Hurst.

  57. ” Ch. 29 of Magna Carta 1297 from legislation.gov.uk:
    “Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the LAW OF THE LAND. ”

    The Law of the Land is Common Law which is created by precedent and Judicial decision AND Statute Law which is made by Parliament. Statue Law taking precedent in the case of conflict. (As has been the settled precedent since before the Conquest)

    Over to you.

  58. CH. Actually no, the concept that common law is superior to statute was settled by LJ Coke in the mid 1600′s after Venetian bankers tried to convince Henry the VIII otherwise from the 1520′s.

    Precedent is set by Judicial reports on juries decisions BTW, not the other way round.

    The absent Sean Gabb wrote a paper about these issues a few years ago.

    Regarding the Norman influence, here is what Erskine May has to say about it:

    ‘The present constitution of Parliament has been the growth of many
    centuries. Its origin and history, though obscured by the remoteness of
    the times and the imperfect records of a dark period in the annals of
    Europe, have been traced back to the free councils of our Saxon ancestors. The
    popular character of these institutions was subverted, for a time, by
    the Norman Conquest: but the peoples of England were Saxon by birth, in
    language and in spirit, and gradually recovered their ancient share in the
    councils of the State. Step by step the legislature has assumed it’s present form
    and character; and after many changes, its constitution is now defined by-
    “the clear and written law, the deep trod footmarks of ancient custom”.

    The Freemen are following a long and honorable tradition in fighting subversion.

    Regards, John Hurst.

  59. the name isnt mine to give

    freeman or not im sure we can all agree that shit stinks…and i think its pretty safe to say that something has to change, everyone seems to be running round like headless chickens in a manic panic, searching for cures to problems that have been created…call me simple but …wouldnt it be easier if we all acted as one for the better of all?? instead of letting our ego rule and dictate the game, stop playing to the ego and try to see things in a wider sense, im not directing this at anyone in particular cos ill be honest ive only scanned the blog, what i noticed is that no-one seems to be looking for middle ground where compromise can be found and a truce can then grow….and with a bit of luck and some furtile minds this blog may hold solutions….Peace joy and harmony are pretty good ethics causing no loss or harm or inflicting injury….i cant see much more the human race would need to Thrive!!! F0m

  60. Why do people refer to CH Ingoldby as a libertarian?

    He clearly isn’t.

    Tony

  61. People Power – Lawful Rebellion
    Evil prospers when good men do nothing
    Edmund Burke- Philosopher circ 1700
    It is as true as ever that it is the responsibility and indeed the duty of good men and women who have the benefit of understanding what is going wrong with our communities, to DO SOMETHING.
    We understand that greed and corruption, permeates our institutions of governance and professional groups, enmeshing segments of the police, the judiciary, social services, the legal profession, the court system, public services, the military and without any doubt the political establishment etc.
    The irony and our misfortune……is that the majority of good men and women working for these same institutions are almost entirely oblivious to the corruption hidden amongst them- they seem so engrossed in the drudgery of their daily lives that their eyes remain firmly shut – unable to see the corruption…. never mind challenge it.
    The ‘network’ of corruption (insidious groupings that meet and plan behind closed doors) impacts upon us all…. it affects our individual and family lives… the way we are governed, the price of our food and petrol, the education of our children, our health, our wealth and our happiness. We are being corporatized down to our very souls. It rains on our own soil and foreign corporations sell our own water to us. We build and pay for our own infrastructure through our taxes only to have these sold off for a song to foreign companies who then fleece us with their charges. International bankers, and not our own government, produce our money supply leaving them free to profit excessively at our expense.
    We are being oppressed by an ever increasing mountain of petty rules and regulations devised by people who do not even live amongst us… we are taxed excessively and unreasonably… we are persecuted by unreasonable speeding and parking fines, litter patrols, political correctness, and a nanny state mentality. An army of bureaucrats tell us what ‘they’ think we can and cannot do or say or even think… they intrude into our lives like parasites and with a persistence that irks us every waking hour of every day. They would permeate our dreams if they could develop the technology to do so.
    They will not leave us alone to live our lives freely and happily…
    AND WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
    We ‘THE PEOPLE’ have a right to govern ourselves and not be governed by a foreign unelected elite.
    We have a right to expect honesty, integrity and openness from those we elect to govern us.
    We have a right to expect that our courts will deliver to us fair justice.
    We have a right to hold our judges, the police, bureaucrats and politicians to account.
    We have a right to expect light-touch and reasonable regulations.
    We have a right to expect our police officers to treat us with respect and serve our needs, not kettle us, hit us with sticks, shoot us with high voltage and spray our faces with gas when we protest lawfully.
    We have a right to be heard and responded to.
    We have a right to control our own money supply.
    We have a right to demand that our children not be socially engineered in our schools.
    We have a right to expect our common law be upheld.
    We have a right to take the health foods that we want without nanny state interference.
    We have a right to expect that our government recognise and defend our constitution.
    And we have a right to LAWFULLY REBEL when our leaders do not obey OUR laws and OUR customs.

  62. I’m not absent, just lazy. In the past two years, I’ve written about 600,000 words. I am now having a break until December. But I’ll repeat that I am interested in the FotL movement and wish it well. I will try to write a longer piece before Christmas.

    In the meantime, I note that everyone has been arguing within or not too far from the limits of the courteous.

  63. thank the creator ime not a libertarian, and am a freeman, whilst you libs faff about like victorian prostitutes trying to gain favour with the Uber classes , my brothers in freedom actually care about the people who make this nation work, and the goal in simple terms, is CHANGE, and for the better, and certainly as soon as possible, i for one am sick to death of intellectuals who sit in there dreary lives of repetition daring to analyse to the nth degree what they mean in there tedious minds whilst we suffer the foolhardiness of there stupidity, well, for my thinking, they (freeman) are certainly aware of what law is, trying to get corruption to let go of its money making bone “Statute Law” is the plan, and the law shall be applied to those who oppose this plan, and it will be common law, it is a knife to the heart for those of you who perpetrate this subtle enslavement technique called “statute law”

  64. Yet again you are wrong on the facts, Hurst.

    In Anglo Saxon legal tradition the recognition of Common Law as being the accepted customs and legal rulings of the courts holding sway UNLESS overuled by Statue Law has been in place since before the unification of the Anglo Saxon Kingdoms. The institution of the Witenagamot, which evolved into Parliament, was issuing Statute Law, which had primacy over Common Law. this principle was continued and reaffirmed after the Conquest.

    This all quite redates the Tudors. (and your quote from Erskine May is clearly irrelevant to your argument)

    And Horlicks, you are clearly an open socialist and collectivist, while I believe in the principle of maximising individual liberty. If you think that not agreeing with wrong, dishonest legal arguments means someone isn’t a libertarian, then that clearly demonstrates (yet again) that you have no actual idea what libertarianism is.

  65. Oh, and the idea that Edward Coke (of all people) ‘settled’ anything about Common Law is absurd. Check out the actual facts for a change. ‘Dr. Bonham’s Case’ in which Coke argued that Statute Law could be overruled by Judges was overturned and not accepted by the Courts, by Judges, by Scholars or by Parliament. Hardly ‘settled’!

    And it had nothing to do with Henry VIII or Venetian bankers. I almost expect you to start talikng about Grand Masonic conspiracies and Humanoid lizards.

  66. Ad Hom again. I’m not biting

    Regards, John Hurst.

  67. As long as the Law does not prosecute war criminals, criminal bankers, criminal MPs, insider traders etc, and as long as the tax regime is so corrupted and inept, then I am not playing. As long as The Law is not equal I am not playing. As long as The Law protects the wealthy and powerful I am not playing. As long as The Law is used as a tool to enforce lunatic social engineering programmes I am not playing. As long as government does the very anti-Libertarian act of creating state-protected cartels and monopolies then I am not playing. As long as we are in the EU, I am not playing. As long as committees of sociopath Common Purpose drones think they can create ever more laws and regulations to strangle to fun out of life I AM NOT PLAYING! As long as these government drones forget that it is MY money they are squandering on their 5 year plans I am not playing. As long as government continues to ignore the demands of the people I am not playing. As long as MPs have no meaningful job description I am not playing. I have chosen to call myself a free man while I am not playing. That is my choice. I am not just a talking head like most Libertarians. I am standing my ground as an idealist and an individual Libertarian. Yes, I am on strike! Who indeed is John Galt? I give them nothing, Starve them of the financial lifeblood that parasites always need. I challenge everything. Question everything. Obfuscate everything. I do not fear them. I am learning. I am teaching others. We are becoming increasingly organised and attracting ever larger numbers. You mock us at your peril. We are the 74% who do not trust our government.

    The method used in the video is just one of dozens that I know of. Other methods are more effective and don’t place us in the hands of these psychopaths. Does gubmint fear us? You betcha! Do we have growing support from within the rank and file. You betcha!

    Do I think there are disinformation agents and quislings out there trying to cast doubt and sow dissent? Absolutely. To think that THEY are stranding idly by while we become an agent for change is ludicrous.

    Lawful Rebellion is the antidote to legal plundering.

  68. If you believe, as I do, that you are a child of the Creator, & that as such you are born equal to all other human beings & with inalienable rights to pursue life, liberty & happiness then you do not need a piece of paper written by dead people to grant you those rights.

    I am free & responsible for my life & to my Creator.

    I don’t care if you have a fancy dress costume, a wig or letters after your name, I do not recognise any man as having authority over me.

    Some people here are basing all there arguments on appeals to authority.

    The days of the pyramidal power structure are over.

    I see some here still in denial about that.

    It’s not complicated.

    Respect to Captain Ranty who is living in integrity with his beliefs.

    When enough of us choose to do that, we will be free…

  69. People, why are you wasting your time with Ingoldby and Gabb. These people are profiteering from the current dictatorship, of course they are going to disagree with you.

    Like many of you, I have found that when we stand up to these bullies (courts, councils and government), it is just like the playground; they simply run away.

    Leave these libertarians – who quite clearly have no idea what true liberty is. Come and play, and leave these despotic fools.

    @ Captain Ranty: my friend, I do not know you, have never met you, but I just wanna give you a cyber hug. You got a lot of emotion there my friend.

    Incidentally, before I go back to my own playground. I’ll just leave Ingoldby and Gabb with this:

    If Freemen are talking gibberish, how comes my local council stopped charging me council tax when I pointed out they were operating for a treasonous government that has violated our great Declaration of Rights. How comes the DVLA did the same; and the Tax office. And how comes Barclays have run a mile, when I pointed out their so called monetary system was actually a debt based fraud. And how comes Taunton Deane Borough Council will no longer talk to me, since I claim to be the Executor of my affairs, and not some arse whipped, snivelling proletarian.

    Let me answer them for you. Very simply. It’s in the name: Parliament. Parley-ment: Talk-lies.

    Just wanted to point that out, since we are all talking nonsense here.

    Peace to you all. May we all find the path together, hand in hand — or some other similar hippy shit. xx

  70. The Freemen are using a sound tactic: use the enemy’s weapons against him. It’s a fact that a whole raft of Statute Laws are illegal according to other Statute Laws and the legal and political establishments have tied themselves in knots trying to keep that straightened out (this simply can’t happen with common law). An awful lot of modern Statute Law is the result of the use of emergency war powers, some left over from WWI, on its face a blatant disregard of the constitution when applied during times of peace (in spite of all the “peacekeeping actions” our war criminal government is involved in we’re not at war and haven’t been for decades).

  71. “Respect to Captain Ranty who is living in integrity with his beliefs.”

    I couldn’t agree more- especially the bit about ‘beliefs’ ie faith….and faith is the absence of fact. You only have to read the replies here to realise that the whole Freeman thing is a religion/sect/cult…just look how they respond to any questioning and how any one who dares question their faith or , worse still asks for the simple facts upon which they base their faith, is a ‘quisling’ or ‘troll’ or even ‘an agent of the establishment’.

    Read John Hursts reply to my asking for the simple facts…it’s enlightening. Erudite paragraphs justifying his assumptions and faith as to why cl.61 didn’t require incorporation…anything to avoid admitting the plain historical fact that it wasn’t and that, by dint, the whole Freeman idea is based on a legal opinion and an historical fallacy.

    “how comes my local council stopped charging me council tax when I pointed out they were operating for a treasonous government that has violated our great Declaration of Rights. How comes the DVLA did the same; and the Tax office”

    Same simple question I asked Ranty and that sent him into a tizzy: Proof? Scan in the letter saying you are no longer liable for Council tax? Tying up bureaucrats in ‘legals’ to the point where your file goes to the bottom of the ‘Nut Job’ pile isn’t difficult but that doesn’t prove anything….as you will probably discover when your car is fed into the crusher. Don’t mistake ‘inaction’ for a ‘win’.

  72. I dont think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislature. You’ve got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer.

  73. Freman_Reverend

    To be libertarian, I should point out, is to be tolerant of all that people do. NOT I might add things that do harm or injury.
    I read here that the dress code of certain individuals has been mentioned. This is not the behaviour of a libertarian, really it isn’t, it IS however a slant and an insult to those who wish to dress that way.
    From my signature, yes, one can see I have taken to the freeman movement and I dress as I like. I have fought in conflicts, in two forces (Navy and Army) I have seen and experienced the training and see it for what it is, indocrination.
    The article above is similar but from a different force, When one is within one cannot see what is without and as such should be seen for what it is.
    The justice and criminal system is corrupt to the core, barring those who have entered it to see that justice is done and have for whatever reason not been affected by the obvious corruption.
    I will not be rude to those who cannot see what I see, because the time is coming when the gloves will come off and then, only then will the light come on and they will see it.
    Until this time, I ask all concerned to be patient and do whatever is required to bring about a world that is not what the PTB are striving for. Let’s all do this in our own ways and at the conclusion concentrate on the successful survival of ourselves and the future generations yet to be.

    We truly owe future generations a world that is none aggressive and free, for them to live as they see fit. My parents ‘god bless them both’, left me with a world that stinks to high heaven of massacre, death, lies, war and prejudice – WHY? because they thought someone else was doing something about it.
    To BOTH sides here, WE are ALL doing something and we are all doing something different, Wouldn’t it make it EASIER for TPTB if we all did the same thing? They would just outlaw it and that would be that.
    So to conclude, to be successful we need to, at least for now, act in solidarity and understanding, confuse the enemy and draw close to starve them of oxygen – Be prepared to prosecute the offenders and give back this country to its true owners.

    Namaste, rev;

  74. @SBC I am more than happy to show you my paperwork. It was an arduous 6 months of back and forth, rebutting none sense such as ‘You must pay it because everyone else does.’ I don’t have a scanner. But if there is a way you can give me an address, and send some money for copying and postage and packaging, then I am more than happy to send them. Or, if you don’t want to give an address, I am happy to meet you in public. Whatever. I am hugely confident that what I have done is correct. If we could learn from one another, then let’s do it.

    In regards to inaction not being a result, I have to refute that. Whilst this is not the case in my matter, as I actually got a letter stating my comments had been noted and the matter had been closed. It’s been nearly two years and I’m not paying council tax, no bailiffs, no court orders. Seems a bit strange if they haven’t conceded the point.

    Getting back to inaction. This unlawful, sorry I mean completely fraudulent, government will never send a letter with their hands up saying “You got us. Now take us to jail.” C’mon SBC, wake up. Criminals never admit their liability. Would you? If you were a criminal, I mean.

    Incidentally, the same happened with Barclays bank. They wanted me to pay back a £2000 overdraft. When I asked them to provide the application they should have made to the OFT Director, in order to be exempt from the Consumer Credit Act, they couldn’t do it (because they never complied with the Act in the first place). We went back and forth for some time, until I started talking about fractional reserve currency, and its validity. They ran a mile. No, they didn’t write me a nice little letter apologising for their fraudulent business, with a promise to release the good men and women of the world from their suffocating grip that has been perpetuated by their fraud. They simply stopped calling. Now, if what they were doing was lawful, why would they do that? Why not get a court order? Actions speak louder than words my friend.

    I know that, when we have invested so much into this world, it is hard to let go. But this world is sinking. And if you hold on for too long, you will go down with it.

    Best wishes to you SBC. And the invitation to meet up and see my paper work is a genuine offer. Peace be with you

  75. I favour maximizing the freedom of everyone to live as they choose.

    Note the “everyone”

    Tony

  76. Dear F Gibbons

    @Johnny | 21 November, 2011 at 11:37 am |

    “Are there no such things as natural rights?”

    I submit that there is only one natural right which cannot be abrogated and that is the right to die.

    Other natural rights are abrogable by force or circumstance:

    The right to life.

    The right to silence

    The right to freedom of thought

    The right to freedom of speech

    The right to work, learn, read, write, create, love, walk, run, play, be happy, be sad, to eat, drink, inhale or otherwise administer any substances, or none.

    The right to travel

    Other rights could be added; the above might be described in fewer, broader rights.

    There can be no doubt that in almost all respects we are freer now than we have been at any time in our history: free from disease, hunger, cold, with access to wealth unimaginable to people of a few generations ago. In many areas even the state has less sway over us than it has been used to. But this does not detract from people’s desire to be free to do more than government currently constrains and licenses us to do.

    For some reason we seem unable to shake off those who crave power to dictate to and abuse the mass of people.

    Those who purport to govern me show themselves to be incapable of performing that function to any decent standard. They abuse their powers. I am ashamed of my government and do what little I can to change it..

    However I wish now to divorce my government and remove myself from its power

    How?

    To say I cannot makes me the government’s livestock: human livestock are slaves.

    I wish no longer to be a slave. I wish to be a free man.

    DP

  77. @DP I maintain that we have inherent rights, as human beings, that fundamentally stem from self-ownership. The question is how to secure those rights. One answer was supposed to be government: clearly this is wrong, as amply demonstrated historically and currently. The fact we are materially better off has concealed how bad things currently are. It appears to me to be fairly safe to assume, given current economic and political trends, that we are about to see it all (i.e. the fruits of advanced, perfected, fascism – the merger of state and corporate power) come out into the plain view. I think there’s a good chance the death toll will be in the billions this century, rather than the tens of millions of the last century. Isn’t progress wonderful.

  78. Bob M, I have altered that wiki article to say:

    “Freemen claim that Magna Carta cannot be repealed. This is true, because Magna Carta was not an Act of Parliament; it was a declaration signed by the Monarch, and stands or falls depending whether you view the Monarch as entitled to make the declaration in the first place. As far as Acts of Parliament are concerned, the 1297 confirmation of the charter incorporated most of Magna Carta into statute law, and it is this 1297 text (without any clause 61 or anything resembling it) which later statutes have repealed or altered. But the 1297 act was not Magna Carta, which was not an Act of Parliament and predates Parliament.”

  79. Apologies for my very delayed response. Sadly, I do not read this blog regularly, so I stopped checking for replies to my original post after a while.

    MY COMMENT ABOVE

    First, I’d like to put my comment that is posted above in context. It is the second of two comments I made on a thread that can be found here: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/freemen-of-the-land-defence/

    In my first comment, I accepted that the Freemen of the Land (FoL) movement at its roots made a little sense, but stated that the way in which it is often expressed – for example, in the video – is legal gibberish. I had seen a number of FoL videos on YouTube, and text on FoL websites, urging those with legal problems to react similarly to Mr Barry in the video above. I simply sought to warn laymen who stumble onto that thread that, if they were to act like that in criminal courts, particularly the Crown Court, they would likely be convicted of contempt of court (a statement by which I still stand). I accept that I did not attempt to dissect the comments made by the narrator of the video or Mr Barry and explain why they were legal gibberish.

    In response, apart from suggesting that a previous poster and I were ‘dickheads’ amongst other things, Captain Ranty asked, ‘Tell me, what kind of contempt are you discussing here?’ and made a few comments about contempt of court that I consider to be completely wrong in law. For example, he suggested that for the criminal offence of contempt of court to be made out ‘There has to be an injured party, and the judge is accepted to have broad enough shoulders to withstand ANY insult.’ He did not provide any references to support this assertion (nor would he be able to find any if he looked, because it is incorrect).

    My second comment, which was a direct response to Captain Ranty’s, has been reproduced above. It was never intended to be a complete critique of the FoL movement. In it, quoting a legal text, I stated that ‘A deliberate disruption of proceedings in court…may be punished as contempt, and in most cases will be dealt with by the court acting of its own motion.’

    Two points should be further noted in relation to the behaviour shown in the video and contempt of court:
    (1) I practise in the criminal courts on most days of the week. I’ve seen people convicted of contempt of court for far less than the behaviour demonstrated by Mr Barry in the video. Say it’s unfair, shameful, a disgrace, etc all you like, but that’s the practical reality of the situation. If you don’t believe me, that’s your choice and good luck to you.
    (2) To use, or to bring into court to use, any sound recording equipment without the court’s permission is in itself a contempt of court. This offence is created by section 9(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. You can read it here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1981/ukpga_19810049_en.pdf The maker of the video has therefore committed the offence of contempt of court and, if others attempt to do the same, they are likely to be convicted of contempt of court if caught.

    LEGAL GIBBERISH/FALSEHOODS

    Here are some examples of the legal gibberish and falsehoods to which I refer in the video:

    2m40s: ‘They [the magistrates] do not honour their oath because they are purely there for issueing summary judgement for profit. In this case, for themselves, the council and of course the commercial court.’

    The magistrates make no such profit for themselves. They sit in a voluntary capacity.

    4m06s: ‘The magistrate is trying anything to get jurisdiction, by assuming the layman is standing for the magistrates which would give them jurisdiction. The clerk regains some honour by advising the magistrate the lay adviser was already standing (and standing under common law) when the magistrates entered the court.’

    Whether a person stands or sits down has nothing to do with him giving the court jurisdiction. The narrator, as usual, gives no references to support this assertion. Unsurprisingly, a defendant in a criminal case can be tried, convicted and sentenced having remained seated throughout proceedings, or even if he simply failed to attend. Standing at certain times in court is just a formality with which people are normally expected to comply. Also, the phrase ‘standing under common law’ is legal gibberish. ‘Common law’ is simply a term that refers to case law, or prescedent; one cannot ‘stand’ under common law.

    4m37s: ‘The magistrates have abandoned the court as they have not gained jurisdiction, and therefore have no authority, and neither does the clerk!’

    The magistrates leaving the court has nothing to do with jurisdiction. They have simply risen for a few moments so the clerk and/or security can try to convince people at the back of the court to leave because they were deemed to have been disrupting proceedings.

    COMMON LAW

    The term ‘common law’ seems to be used by supporters of the FoL movement without a proper understanding of what it means. It is simply case law, or prescedent, and here is a simple guide:
    (1) Some offences, such as murder, are described as common law offences. This is because they are so old that the way in which they are dealt with has been determined by case law that has developed over a long period of time. As such, there are no specific Acts of Parliament that create these offences, but they way in which they are dealt with is set by a series of prescedents. However, Acts of Parliament can and do still affect the way in which these offences are dealt with. For example, they may set out available defences, applicable sentences, etc.
    (2) Some offences are created by Acts of Parliament. But when courts are dealing with such offences, the situation will inevitably arise where two cases of the same offence need to be dealt with differently because their particular facts differ. In dealing with them differently, the courts in turn set prescedents.

    I appreciate that supporters of the FoL movement believe that people cannot be governed according to Acts of Parliament unless they specifically consent to them. But common law is equally man-made, which is where their argument breaks down. It therefore amounts to nothing more than a constitutional and philosophical argument of ‘who are you to say what I should and shouldn’t do?

  80. Just in relation to a few separate points raised in the comments:
    (1) I don’t believe our membership of the EU to be at odds with parliamentary sovereignty, as Parliament could pull out of the EU if it so wished. This is perhaps another long discussion for another time and thread!
    (2) Our constitution isn’t unwritten; it’s uncodified. It’s made up of documents, traditions, customs, and many other elements, but it’s inaccurate to describe it as unwritten.

  81. I’ve just noticed the comment some way above by suedenimon, which strikes me as extremely bizarre indeed.

    ‘…I find it very difficult to square the logic that ANY barrister can actually lay claim to being a libertarian unless it is done in the same way as wearing a fashion item like a Prada handbag to proclaim ones credentials to be in ‘the’ set!, for barristers are almost to a person inclined heavily towards the conservative, though I do allow that singularly unsuccessful ones who are unable to put forward cogent arguments and thus fail miserably to impress ‘chambers’ into giving them work may pretend to be libertarian to impress others who do not take the time or trouble to think for themselves.’

    This is a completely outdated and cartoonish view of the Bar that is undoubtedly shaped by nothing more than fantasy and watching far too many period dramas. I, for one, know many members of the Bar (and of my own Chambers) who range from everything from conservatives, to liberals, to socialists, to communists and beyond. There are some sets that are completely dedicated to left-wing law and politics: take a look at leading chambers Garden Court (http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/) and Doughty Street (http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/) and their members’ profiles if you don’t believe me. Loads of chambers have dedicated asylum, immigration and human rights teams that are far from conservative, and some chambers are almost entirely dedicated to the practise of such law (for appellants as opposed to the state). Yes, many sets are conservative too, but the strength of your statement above is an extreme exaggeration to the point of absurdity.

    ‘If Mr Gibbons were to hand such rubbish in at court he would be disbarred and thrown out of the Law Society pretty damn sharpish I would think, if not slung into the cells for contempt (disturbing the proceedings of the court).’

    Please. This doesn’t even make sense. Barristers aren’t even regulated by the Law Society.

    In my initial comments, where I sought to warn laymen off copying Mr Barry’s behaviour in the video, I expressed a genuine view that such behaviour was likely to see people convicted of contempt of court. I can see that some supporters of the FoL movement have taken this as some sort of insult as opposed to the genuine, practical experience of someone who practises in these courts regularly and knows how judges apply the law there. As such, on both threads, I’ve been met with quite some venom as well as personal insults, which I hasten to add I have not made against anyone else on either of these threads.

    That said, if some people are simply approaching this debate from the childish viewpoint that all barristers are ultra-conservative monsters incapable of independent thought, purely by virtue of their profession, I suppose there is little chance of any actual discussion, sans name calling and insults.

  82. Finally, please excuse the persistent misspelling of ‘precedent’ in my comment three above: my spellchecker seems to have been conspiring against me.

  83. Pingback: Freemen of the Land: A Barrister Writes Again | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  84. Bravo to Capt Ranty and the other sovs on here. The Freeman movement is in its infancy but growing fast. Ordinary people are seeing exactly what is being done in their name and don’t want to play. In fact, I would argue that when we do see, we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to halt the suffering and unlawful killing of our fellow human beings.

    To the non freeman element, I would like to ask this (rhetorical)question:

    You are driving along a road. You see a human being dying on the pavement. Would you pull in and help? Or would it depend on the number of yellow lines on the road?

  85. It seems relatively simple to me: do you believe in natural rights, do you believe there are actually such things as “right” and “wrong” or is such stuff all just made up by people agreeing amongst themselves? I believe there are natural rights and that although, as a matter of practical fact, a gang of people acting under the colour of law can do what they want what they are doing is illegal, immoral, and unethical. The current British political and legal system is now so corrupt it is, as Sean has pointed out, a tyranny. I owe no allegiance to such a system nor anyone operating within such a system. People who live consciously within such a system and accept it are evil, people who live unconsciously within such a system and accept it are on better than zombies.

  86. If it were jibberish, simple fact is, WHY wasnt the layman arrested or held in contempt of court, and WHY did the judge leave the chambers? the simplest questions remain….. i have seen several cases now where similar things happen, and when the jurisdiction is questioned via the oath, the judge has either left or abandoned the case, so if its all just jibberish why the same reactions out of numerous judges? you can argue the intricacies of statutes and laws all day long, but the simple fact remains….. why are these people not being held in contempt like Gibbons claims they would be?

  87. Pingback: has anyone refused to pay fixed penalty fine - Page 2

  88. I think the issue is fundamentally a corrupted system, our basis of law if fundamentally sound, it practice is highly suspect. take for instance the premise (false) that parliament is sovereign, it is not.

    Judge Coke: Bonham’s Case (1608)
    “…when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed,
    the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void.”

    Heydon’s Case [1584]

    To decide whether an act of parliament is lawful judges must consider:
    1. ‘What was the common law before the making of the Act?’
    2. ‘What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?’
    3. ‘What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth?’ And,
    4. ‘The true reason of the remedy’

    Nichols v. Nichols, 1576:
    “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”

    I believe the judiciary need some education on the law

  89. Captin ranty, i wonder if gibbons is responsible for the completely one sided report on Wikipedia. whoever wrote this is in no wy presenting a balanced view.
    I ask because maybe your the guy to balance it?
    How many young ones read wiki and take the advice?
    I am not a freeman (yet) but during the free time i do have i do like to try and get informed. I have read all arguments and as you probably guess i think there is so much substance to the freeman argument.

  90. *no way

  91. The issue is that “what is a freeman” in law has not been properly explored by the supposed freeman on the land who make so many errors of law, mainly due importing was is so in the USA plus some bits that is not so in the UK. Some of this then ends up as nonsense. There needs to be a distillation process to separate fact from fiction if you will excuse the pun.

  92. One thing I like to talk about is this insistence on THE NAME, is it THE NAME that gets arrested? No its the body, maybe rather than trying to get rid of THE NAME it is THE BODY that should be disposed of…. Whoops I think you might need that.

  93. That said there is one fact that is of real substance, the administration of law has become an abomination!

  94. About gibberish
    what is legalese if not gibberish? one mans English should be a clear and concise as the next. So to say the man was talking legal gibberish to the court is the same as saying the court were talking legalese to the man.
    why it cant all be done in the plainest , simplest terms is beyond me. how can i defend myself against legalese if i aint got a clue what the F they are on about.
    to get a fair hearing i have to have an understanding of what is being said and happening in front of me, but whilst it is in legalese or gibberish for that matter i will never get a fair hearing
    simplify the law
    simplify the courts
    simplify life

  95. I think many of us have missed the point here, the courts have indeed become a great commercial institution, where the creation of money and jobs for the minority have erroded the preservance of justice, this is a steretype example of how our justice system now operates with reference to the collection of monies that many of us no longer have democratic control over in relation to what we pay or are required to pay by the so called rule of law, of cousrse the criminal trials indeed in some cases involve a great
    deal of corruption and in some cases blackmail, particularly where the state has been invoved in criminality, such as the police public officials, I am sure
    if Robert kett where around today, he be in the process of preparing his
    peasant army, I have sat in on many criminal trials in the lower courts, these
    are a backward travisity of injustice, I for one will be glad when they allow
    the cameras in the courts, it’s not difficult to see why the government resists
    such effords to protect democracy and justice !

  96. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  97. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System