to think the 'common law/freeman on the land' thing is a whole load of bollocks?

[qwertypop]

I've come across a few people over the last few years that take it very seriously and bang on at length about how the police and courts have no authority over them as they are self declared 'freemen'. Something to do with common law being the only true law in Britain, I think? And not having to wear bike helmets or pay for TV licenses or repay your debts also seem important to the ones I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting.

A couple I met at the weekend have taken the biscuit though and not registered their baby's birth because apparently this will mean said baby grows up to be a 'freeman' (she's actually a girl but the term appears to be freeman anyway). They believe quite firmly that to register her birth will mean that the law assumes her and her name (which is a fucking corker, of course) are one and the same and that only by NOT registering her birth can she be free to be a human being. Quite what this actually means is a mystery to me and tbh the mumbo jumbo they gave me by way of an answer leads me to suspect they don't really know either

I've tried to read up on it but all the info I can find is written in a style you'd expect of an paranoid, delusional, and possibly hallucinating chimpanzee let loose with a legal dictionary.

So AIBU to think this is bollocky woo of the most fucking ridiculous type? Or is someone going to come along and actually enlighten me as to wtf its all about, preferably in plain English with no pseudo-legalese?

Thanks Mowe, I will definitely check out those threads, I am very glad to hear the Canadian courts have reacted sensibly.

Here I am afraid there is just exasperated bafflement, from what I have seen in the family courts, and the proceedings just role on regardless.

But given that there is a high risk that vulnerable people are being exploited, both financially and emotionally, I think our courts ought to be taking it more seriously and engaging in the way the Canadian courts have.

Well, maybe our civil courts already are, I don't have any experience of those. Just worried about how the family courts approach it.

Now that's interesting - in Mowe's first thread he describes how the law society of a British Colombia took out an injunction against one of the freeman to 'stop playing the lawyer'.

But why would a law society do that and not the relevant government department? Or IS that the relevant gov department?

I can now add ignorance of. Canadian constitution to the ever growing list of things I don't know about...

Nomorequotes - this from Mowe's interesting threads may shed some light on what is going to happen to your pixie clad friend...

Clifford appeared in court on Tuesday and urged the judge to read the paperwork from his brother and declared his autonomy.

“I am a non-resident of Canada,” he said.

Clifford was sent for a psychological assessment when he repeatedly told the judge he couldn’t understand his charges after they were read out to him.

“I don’t agree with the charges,” Clifford told the judge. “I understand the English language.”

He said he wouldn’t consent to a psychological assessment, but Judge Ann Brown said she felt it was necessary.

“I have some concern you can’t understand these proceedings,” she said.

He also asked the judge to read documents faxed to the court by his brother, Dean Clifford, a man who has numerous online videos and blogs outlining his viewpoints which include rejecting government authority, not holding a driver’s license and denying the police’s right to stop and detain people.

The Canadian courts are dealing with this very well

Seated in the prisoner’s dock wearing a hooded sweatshirt, cut-off shorts and leg shackles, Clifford began the day by refusing to acknowledge his name. Instead, he read from handwritten notes on foolscap held in a black folder.

The rhetoric is similar to that of so-called sovereign citizens who refuse to obey police, judges and other authority figures.

“Sir, are you Darren Murray Clifford?” asked Judge Patrick McIlhargey.

“I am Darren Murray Murphy, son of David Clifford and grandson of William Clifford. ... I am now being seen as a man with standing,” he told court.

“I refuse to accommodate the name of any capacity bound by your political organization. I never have nor ever will give consent to be associated with the legal person under the terms and conditions of a birth certificate,” he said.

When asked if he was ready for his trial, Clifford said: “I am under no securities agreement with Her Majesty the Queen, I am a land owner and Her Majesty the Queen is a tenant. This tribunal known as provincial court is trying to force me to act against my conscience. This is an unconscionable act,” he said.

...

Clifford, who didn’t cross examine Christie or take the stand to testify in his defence, tried arguing that the Mountie erred because when Clifford asked to see the warrant, he didn’t have it with him, and wouldn’t identify himself by name when “asked about 25 times,” said Clifford.

The judge ruled both points were non-issues — Mounties have no need to produce warrants, although it is preferable, he said. And the fact that Christie was wearing a uniform, gun holster and driving an RCMP truck outfitted with light was enough, the judge said.

Christie said Clifford told him his billing rate was a million dollars an hour and he wanted to see the arrest warrant and other documents, which Christie said were back at the office.

Christie’s conduct was commendable, the judge said.

“It seems to me the officer was extremely patient and in control,” McIlhargey said.

The Crown recommended Clifford be ordered to undergo counselling for “life management skills” as part of probation.

“He seems to be starting to develop a bit of a pattern of disrespect to the court,” Faught said.

But the judge said he didn’t agree with imposing anything to retrain the accused’s political beliefs.

“I feel like I’m being profiled,” Clifford said.

“There’s no evidence about my being associated with this Freeman thing.”

HilfskreuzerMowe Thank you for dipping in.

I have enjoyed dipping in to the historical stuff when I calmed down, but as a human being I am so sad that people are going to get their lives trashed because they bought into this rubbish - literally. They have paid for the hokum that they bring to court.

On the diversion, I think 'English' was used for the areas conquered by the Anglo Saxons quite early on, from around the seventh century. British refers to the inhabitants before the Anglo Saxon invasions and you get British enclaves holding on until the seventh and eighth centuries. As for a kingdom of England, there was usually a king that claimed overlordship (Bretwalda) from around the eighth century but I don't think you can look at a king of England until the tenth century.

I've banged on about history and law, but it really isn't relevant. Those who bring this whole 'freeman' business into courts are not interested in the actual reality of law or history. They have just bought some magic beans and they are desperate to believe that they haven't been conned.

My brother comes out with this sort of stuff all the time. He's uber clever and really knows his stuff. The thing is, he'd never try it court because he's smart enough to know it for what it is. I think he treats it as a form of mental gymnastics, interesting and good for stretching the brain. The problem arises from those around him who aren't quite so smart and take it all at face value and believe ie my mum who is totally convinced that the world is ruled by reptiles in human disguises, thanks bro for that one

The past few pages have been really interesting, every day's a school day off on MN!

When I studied Scottish history, I was taught that Scotland was made up of Anglian bits, Pictish bits, Norse bits and Scottish bits. I can't remember exactly where the Scottish bits were. Anyway, the point being made was that Scotland was never purely Celtic.

Thank you Toad, very interesting. Were the Scots bits not Irish originally?

Perhaps this explains Alex Salmond's confusion over whether to claim that Scotland is a Nordic country (like the revered Norway) or more like Ireland (which has admittedly gone out of favour since its economic problems!)

OldLady But I am coming mainly from a Scots perspective, and have little idea about how "England" evolved, which is why I'm finding the discussion so interesting, and informative

That's strange, because I went to school in Scotland, and I know a reasonable amount about British history. Its part of the history of Scotland too so this seems odd to me.

I wonder what you're reading if you're seeing "constant pushing of tartan, kilts, Gaelic and bagpipe culture"; I see none of this. Maybe you need to widen your reading material? I'd recommend www.wingsoverscotland.com

Yes, there is certainly an attempt to push a distinct Scottish culture at the moment, using all possible tools including political rhetoric (cf some of Salmond's quotes) and media sources.

I've done a Masters degree at a continental university, and I doubt that my reading material is narrow. I wouldn't really consider a biased internet website a particularly good source - why do Scottish nationalists tend to do this (patronisingly "guide" the well educated towards non-published sources of propaganda, in the mistaken belief that they are somehow in need of such guidance?)

If you can direct me towards any proper published sources you think I need education from, please do so. There is quite a difference between publishing your own blog and being paid to write a book. Wings over Scotland is extremely biased in favour of Scottish independence - typical wording reads Just for laughs, we thought we’d have a look on the BBC website this morning for some intelligent, detailed analysis of yesterday’s devolution proposals from the Conservatives. Yeah, we know. We must still be a bit drunk from last night and on in this vein Mr Wings doth proceed with his latest tirade against media bias. What are Mr Wings's actual qualifications? tbh I've got the opposite impression about the BBC's content, but the nationalists haven't liked it since that documentary about the Scandinavian countries which found them to be more right wing than Scotland currently is.

Theres actually quite a lot about the Scottish independence debate that reminds me of the freeman movement. I have a very personal viewpoint, and one even I don't take very seriously, and that is that there is a lot of rejection of the Norman Conquest going on still in the UK. I would be interested in reading a proper legal argument for the freeman movement, but so far none of what I have read makes sense. I think they are harking back to the Danelaw before the Normans introduced feudalism, but even then surely freemen were created as an honour by a powerful individual and not by self grant, as society then as now would have otherwise curtailed it.

The whole thing about free men in the Middle Ages is a bit of a red herring. Before the Norman conquest most were assumed either free or slave with varying degrees of legal obligations. All free men had to pay their taxes, serve in the army/garrison the fort and maintain the roads and bridges (with the usual exceptions, caveats etc). This is not what the freeman movement want to hear.

After the Norman conquest (subject to transition, exception, Celtic fringe etc) the division was between those who were serf and those who were free. Those who were serfs were not allowed to take part in the legal process in the king's court. They had to accept the justice dealt out by the local manorial court. Those who were free (lords, mainly) took their legal matters to the king's court. It was a definition of being free that you took any dispute about land, property, etc to the king's court and that if you were accused of crime you were not hauled before the local manorial court but the king's judge. Ironic, really, if you compare it to the claims of the freeman movement.

There's loads of exceptions and twiddly bits, but I believe the above is a good general sweep.

I also love the irony that they try and prove that they are not subject to the law by pointing out bits of law.

good post lisa - how can you not be subject to the laws of the land yet claim benefits and live in a council house - not that I want to start benefit bashing in fact the only 'freeman on the land' that I know has every good reason to do both of those - but surely if you want to live 'off grid' you have to go the whole hog.

Can I just again offer a VERY sincere vote of thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have been worried about the freeman movement for about two years now and I have been considering a blog post for at least six months - this has been the kick up the arse I needed and it has been very, very helpful to have access to some of the links.

I would be grateful if anyone has a moment, if they could cast their eye over this and let me know if you think it is clear and accessible and might actually help some people understand the dangers of going down the freeman road in family cases.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/the-freeman-and-common-law/

Spero It looked very clear to me. The only suggestion I would make is to perhaps make clearer how much damage this sort of stuff can do to a legitimate case. In fact, I would say that the freeman stuff makes a case unwinnable and still leaves people at the mercy of legal sanctions - lose lose.

Well I guess there is nothing to stop the self proclaimed "freemen" from using a judicial precedent in common law in their favour where someone has succeeded using this argument! (Except of course there isn't one).

Spero - what does the Law Society think of this?

Thanks Lisa, that is an excellent suggestion, I will amend post.

In answer to question about Law Society - I don't know, which I guess tells you something.

the court response I have met thus far seems to be just weary contempt/amusement. Most judges are very courteous and try to get people to engage but after a short time of trying they just give up and get on with the hearing.

It is such a shame because, as you say, someone could have a decent case but coming to court as a Freeman immediately starts warning bells ringing about your state of mind.

I have amended post to say

We would be very interested to learn of any family case where 'Freeman' arguments have been deployed and have met with success because at present we are not aware of any such case - in fact the reverse appears to be true; 'freeman' arguments appear to be positively detrimental to people's chances of success in the family (or any other) court.

If you concentrate on making your arguments about why the court should recognise you as a 'freeman on the land' then any relevant arguments you do have about how the law should be applied in your child's case, will not get heard. Please consider very carefully if you want to go down this route, particularly as if you are a respondent in care proceedings you will be entitled to non means and non merits tested public funding to instruct a lawyer of your choice.

See our post from a family law barrister about her role.

Spero That is good, very clear. It is so hard. You just know that it is vulnerable people who are being dragged into this, and they may have had a case. On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of these are idiots trying to prove how clever they are and there is a reason why they are in the family courts

I miss being part of the legal process.

Forget Law A level - how about an OU course or similar? come and join us!

I have also added this comment from the Canadian Judge, because I think he is ace. OPCA refers to Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments.

OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons.

Hi,

The 'when was England England' is (thankfully) something I actually do know about.

By 1450, yes, English people definitely had a sense of national identity, though my friend who is a medievalist and a Geordie will tell you Geordies (and most other people in border lands) have always had a different sense of that, right up until much later on.

'I think England has existed since at least 1450, since the Normans were recorded as vanquishing old native "English" aristocracy? True, middle English might have used words for Anglian or Saxon, but the modern translation would be English?'

The 1066 stuff is always being reinterpreted, and it's too early for me. But, basically, Anglo-Saxon England is unusual in that, well before 1066, laws were being written in English and in Latin. Most countries in Europe didn't use the vernacular (even alongside Latin). From before 1066, some people in England were using a version of French (because people always learn trade languages and settle across borders), and afterwards, people used at least three languages (English/French/Latin) and often four (Welsh near Wales, etc.).

From 1300 or so people get really keen on 'what is England' and people write books where they get polemical (in a slightly Nigel Farage way) about how English is the better language - one of these books is chock-a-block with Latin references to the law, which the bloke quotes in Latin (eg, 'In code "de raptu virginum"').

So at least in about 1303 and for that writer, the identity of 'England' rests on the language people use and on the (Latin) laws that govern the country. But I think the languge in use is less important than the laws, TBH, because other polemicists make the same arguments for other languages. People at this point were often fantastically clued up on their legal rights, including where their own borders ran, so they'd have been interested.

The 'freeman' thing in Middle English is absurd. I said it further up the thread but honestly, IME it often just means 'person who has slightly fewer restrictions on trading in this city than someone from another city'. Freemen pay tax. Loads of tax, in some cases.

Sorry, I am aware that is a massive digression, it's just I saw posts asking and since I've spent most of this thread soaking up information I wanted to add bits!

I watched that series on parking disputes that was BBC One a few weeks back (I spent much of the programme yelling 'you don't have a bloody divine right to park outside your own house' and 'if you don't want a ticket, don't park on a double yellow' but I digress) and someone having exhausted the 'street signs weren't clear' 'I was only 5 minutes' angles tried the 'as a freeman on the land' bullshit. I don't think they actually believed it, but had just googled 'how to get out of parking fines' and this had come up.

The adjudicator clearly having heard this shite a thousand times before asked him how he thought this applied to the case and the bloke just looked confused that the mere fact that he'd read out this cotter hadn't made the parking fine go away.

Very well done, Lisa, Spero and fellow rational posters. I really admire your patience.

Harking back to the Scotland/England question, the early paragraphs of this article, although from Wikipedia, give a fairly decent summary of the traditional view:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland

For more information on Strathclyde and other early kingdoms in the northern British Isles, follow the links in the paragraph in the above article headed 'Origins 400-943'

Medieval kings of England claimed the right of overlordship of the Scottish kingdom, but, as Chelsy said upthread, the wars of independence in 13th/14th cent ultimately defined the limits of authority of Scottish and English kings - ie the border. Berwick was Scottish until the 15th cent, and the border lands themselves remained pretty lawless in practice until the 16th cent.

Sorry - cross post with LRD
But I think we are saying much the same thing, from different sides of the border.

Re the use of language as a signifier of identity, the section 'Goth vs Gael' of this article below is interesting, and fits rather neatly with what LRD is saying:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Kingdom_of_Alba