Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

794 replies

qwertypop · 01/06/2014 20:10

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 Hmm

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?

OP posts:
HilfskreuzerMowe · 07/06/2014 05:00

In the Canadian experience many of the worst cases are family law matters, usually scenarios that involve custody or access. It’s sad because in many instances I suspect the parent who is pushing these actions could have at least some access or role in the child’s life, but the use of Freeman tactics almost guarantees that will not be the result.

Putting together the pieces, it usually looks like the parent(s) who adopt Freeman strategies have some kind of issues – drugs, homelessness, violence, criminal activities. My suspicion has long been that these people have limited success when they try to use lawyers or the ‘legal’ procedures to gain access/custody of their children. Their desperation leads them to use Freeman schemes which just make things worse. That then cycles up.

There aren’t a lot of reported cases of this kind in Canada but our little Canadian observer group has tracked a few via media sources and the parent’s own websites. But the most bizarre example of this scenario turns out to be founder and principle guru of the Freeman-on-the-Land community itself – Robert-Arthur: Menard.

Menard, back in the early 2000’s, was the one who collected a number of pre-existing OPCA ideas and combined those to create the characteristic Freeman-on-the-Land concept set: that everything is a contract, you are only controlled by the government through a ‘strawman’ legal entity attached to you, and that you can unilaterally ‘contract out’ of that strawman bond.

But that wasn’t his first obsession. It was his daughter. Menard claims to have a daughter he fathered with a underage street child he met in a bar. The newborn daughter, Elizabeth Anne Elaine, was then ‘abducted’ by child welfare services. Menard’s initial obsession was an idea that a parent signing a birth certificate turns a child into the government’s property. Here, the mother of his child did that, and that’s why Menard believes he could not keep his child.

Rather than provide more detail, I’d suggest those interested read Menard’s book on the subject “Your Child Or Her Life! DECEPTION AND EVIL IN THE Ministry of Children, Family and Community Development”, by Robert Arthur: - www.angelfire.com/planet/thinkfree/childorlife.pdf

It’s pretty extraordinary. Here’s how the narrative starts:

The following is the truth. One day back in April of 2000, I was chatting on line with a woman in Arizona. We had been chatting for a few weerks and most of our conversations had to do with the nature of God. She told me that she had just had the strangest feeling that I was going to be called to serve God and it would be the most difficult thing I had ever done. I said “Why does He have dietary restrictions?” Just then my neighbour came down the stairs and pounded on my door. Ben is a very large native man. He stands 6’4” and weighs 225lbs. He was very intoxicated and he told me that his spirit guide had told him to take me to the bar. The bar he was reffering to was a dive and not my type of place. I refused to go. He threw my jaket at me, shut down my computer and tyhreatened to knock me out and carry me if he had to. I decided to humour him and go for a quick beer.

Within two minutes of walking in, a beautiful young woman walked in the bar. I swear I thought I spoke the following words, Ben says he never heard me say them however. I heard them like they had come from my own mouth. “She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” I noticed all the crack dealers and pimps eyeing her like she was the dinner special and I got a huge sadness settle upon my heart. I was like a big wet carpet and I thought my heart my stop. Suddenly, something grabbed the love in my heart and communicated with mne by vibrating it. “Take her child as your own and you will be foreever blessed.” In my minds eye, I had a picture of my father and mother and I realized he had never raised his voice to her let alone his hand. I was being asked to love her and her child like my father had loved his wife and children. I said “Okey Dokey” to the power that grabbed my love and I became a daddy at that moment.

I invited Megan over to our table and in the first fivew miniutes told her she was pregnant. She didn’t believe me. She was only a week or two pregnant and was showing absolutely no physiological signs. She had no place to stay that night so I invited her over to my place and she accepted. We became a couple a fewq days later. At this time she was into hard drugs and hjarder living. I told her God had told me she was pregnant and she dismissed it refusing to believe in a God. When she later found out she was pregnant, it blew her away that I had known and claimed God told me. It empowered her considerably. Apparently, knowing God loves us can do that. She totally cleaned up her act. She quit smoking, drinking and partying and started to look at getting her GED. We were together throughout her pregnancy and moved into a new place together. We had purchased baby things in anticipation of Elizabeth’s arrival and we were excited and hopeful. We were a family in both act and intent. We were happy.

Elizabeth was born healthy and very beautiful on Dec 3rd, 2000. This little miracle was a result of my love for her and her mother and her mother’s near heroic successful efforts to clean herself up. The next day was without doubt the happiest of my life. When I first held Elizabeth, my heart swelled till I thought it would burst. It was like I had never loved before. I was pumped and motivated and so incredibly hopeful for the future. I was a daddy and Elizabeth was born without any signs of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or cognitive dysfunction due to cocaine abuse.

On Dec 5th 2000, without first conducting any investigation or assessment, the state ‘legally’ removed her. They did so through agents Celia Huber and Charles Hodgson. They claimed that Elizabeth only had one care giver. We told them they were wrong, she had two, we were a family in act and intent and had they investigated they would have known that. We told them we would prove in court that they had not investigated and that we were a family. Celia Huber, in the presence of Charles Hodgson, told us that if we tried, she would see to it that Elizabeth spent the first five years of her life going from foster home to foster home to foster home. What loving parent would risk that?

They tore our family apart and made Megan care for Elizabeth all alone. They halved the level of care that Elizabeth was to receive and they doubled Megan’s work load. They endangered Elizabeth’s life through their criminal actions.

I sat down with their Act and I had Black’s Law dictionary on one side and Bouviers on the other. I looked up every single word. It took me three days. When I was done, I was stunned. I said one word “Sonofabitch”. Some of their words do not mean what you think they do. They expand definitions and they use a great deal of deception. It is much like those laser engraved pictures which you can only see if you focus past the image. To see their deception you have to dig past layers of twisty words, but its there.

They came into my life and destroyed our family and seriously harmed the two people I loved the most. I committed no crime, faced no charges nor called into court, yet I lost my family. They threatened an innocent two day old infant with permanent irreparable harm and endangered Elizabeth’s life. They are deceivers and rely on our ignorance for their authority. They exercise that authority without understanding, restraint or compassion. They should know better than to threaten an infant. Their evil and vile lies destroyed my family and almost destroyed me.

And that’s where Freemanism came from.

It turns out that much of Your Child Or Her Life is plagiarized from another source – though not the Menard and Child narrative - www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9364&p=165027#p165027

Menard comments on this subject in some other websites that appear to have been forgotten or abandoned, for example:

The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society: www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/

Menard doesn’t talk about this much any long. I think it’s due to profound cognitive dissonance. At the time he was an unemployed street performer. He entered into a relationship with a much younger individual, probably a very troubled person. A child resulted. The mother appears to have voluntarily given up the child for adoption. So, Menard faces a challenge:

  1. the nature of his relationship with the mother;
  1. his inability to parent, his absence of any useful work or life skills, probable drug use and addictions, and lack of finances;
  1. the fact the mother of his child wants him no-where near the kid, and probably herself; and
  1. his genuine emotion and bond to his child and his wish to be a parent.

He has failed himself, his child, and the child's mother. If he were honest to himself the consequences would be, at a minimum, grim. So he reverses the blame, and puts the fault outside himself. If only he had been given a chance with Elizabeth Anne Elaine. He'd have shown them all what he could do. It wasn't his fault. He was denied that chance by sinister government authorities who enslave the Canadian population - and the vile mechanism by which they derived the authority to seize his child. Her mother had signed a birth certificate.

In Canada we have seen this particular drama revisited in various forms, with other troubled parents. These are, perhaps, the most difficult OPCA litigants to control and assist. I think it is because they know, on some level, their error. There’s a weird symmetry that these desperate, traumatized parents will be the last Freemen - the ones who just won't give up – and in that way they are precisely the same as the first.

SMS Möwe

Spero · 07/06/2014 09:26

'These desparate, traumatized parents will be the last Freemen'

I wish this wasn't true but I am sure it is.

SolidGoldBrass · 07/06/2014 11:57

I think it's also likely to be a popular strategy with abusive men. A lot of abusive men already consider themselves special and above the law, so it's probably unsurprising that OPCAs show up a lot in family courts, convinced of their right to carry on abusing the women and children who are desperate to get away with them. It's very much a type of philosophy to appeal to men who are both selfish and inadequate, who have failed in life and want to blame anyone and anything apart from themselves.

nomorequotes · 07/06/2014 15:14

Well solid it is quite interesting that the mother of the above case was not voicing her wishes to be a 'freeman' and together with that guy.

nauticant · 09/06/2014 10:24

Interesting thread. Going back a page or two, I'm not that keen on Denning either. Whenever I hear his name I think of this part of his Court of Appeal judgement against an appeal by the Birmingham Six:

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.

PenguinsHatchedAnEgg · 09/06/2014 12:22

Yeah, he certainly gave some dodgy judgments. And was very much of his time.

kaywil1992 · 17/11/2014 15:34

I completely agree, from what I've read and seen, "freemen of the land or " of the family" humans have never actually won a case just postponed the inevitable outcome. Just come across to me as people who don't want to pay their way in life and will do everything within their power to avoid paying bills. Then they go telling everyone else to use the shit legislation which my three year old could have made up and end up getting people in more debt and trouble.

kaywil1992 · 17/11/2014 15:39

One woman got put in prison for doing that as she ignored the courts ruling.

SamiBE · 17/11/2014 15:41

Isn't that illegal not register a Birth? How will the child see a GP , start school and get a job with no documents? Sounds to me the parents are crazy!

PloteSnitkin · 30/12/2014 17:22

It's hard when you learn someone you've followed is not what they claim, but that's the case here sadly with more Freeman of the Land content. It's posted so you can choose whether you should follow this person's advice or not.

Many will remember this site Screw the Bailiff (web.archive.org/web/20090903120015/criminal-bailiffs.angelfire.com/about.htm ) started by a person now known as JasonDWB or Jason Bailey (pseudonym not real name). His real name is Jason Bennison.

Read his history and the impressive career path he has had. This is all a lie - it is total fabrication.

He repeats similar claims and a MASSIVE bailiff pay out over £100000 on this site where JasonDWB is Happy Contrails (www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?32411-Hello-from-Happy-Contrails ).

After the fabrication was discovered his reputation was put in the spotlight. JasonDWB tried to distance himself from this past as he set up in business. A man whose entire past is one big fabrication is someone many might question doing business with - obviously their decision.

He got some major links to lead to a 404 Page Not Found error (follow first link below), but made sure some critical ones redirected to his new business (follow 2nd link below - you need to wait a second). HERE’s the LINK: forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48497

I'm not saying people shouldn't follow JasonDWB's advice, but do it know his entire past is based on fabrication. This is the man you will be giving your money to and this is the man who will be advising you. A fake. Someone against whom you have no redress at all. Someone who lives in Crawley, West London, Glasgow, Dubai yet claims none of these places. Someone who posts client's personal details on his site when you disagree with him. That is the real Jason Bennison.

Given all of the above think about trust and think whether you want to risk your money with someone who has a history of fabricating everything he has done. It's your money, it's your choice.

Take the usual precautions, especially here -
Ask for proof of what is claimed on the website
Ask for solid proof of successes
Don't only accept his word
Ask for contact details of clients for references (no problem for a reputable business)
Read around other consumer forums and ask on there
Don't pay for advice you can get free
Trust those you know for sure you can trust
Ask for trade organisations -he says he is a draughtsman I think
Ask about guarantees (money back guarantees if he is certain?)
Ask where the company is registered and check this information
Ask why his site is run under a pseudonym and check the real name Jason Bennison (using Google for example)
Ask WHY he needed to fabricate his past and check any explanation told, however plausible CHECK it

JasonDWB has a history of fabricating things and making claims which appear not to be true. Go in with your eyes opened. He may be very good, I don't know. Nobody wants to be conned though, if you're not happy report to Trading Standards, FCA, ICO and all other official bodies.

Above all remember you can get really good advice FREE.

wtaylor1986 · 02/01/2015 01:45

the movement does work and is very tricky, but it varies as to what your using it for! i started using an aspect of it for when police just try and stop me and my firends because were out late.
it does work and yes i have seen the wikipedia page that says it doesn't but if they decalred that it worked nobody would pay council tax, debts, utility bills, have a driving licence or insurance. in theory you can lawfully posess a gun without a licence.
the way it works is the defenition's of laws (act's & statute's=they are only given the power to be enforced as a law if consent is given.)
ask any police officer if they police via the consent of the public?
ask them if they stand under their oath?? (to serve and protect the queen and to uphold the law of the land , which is common law)
whereas act's and statutes are law of the sea
it works because a dictionary has one defenition , whereas a law dictionary has a completely different defenition.
for example a driver in a dictionary=someone who drives a vehicle
whereas in a certain law dictionry a driver is only classified as a professional driver. its a play on the wording and their own statutes and act's are frequently undermined by common law.
back to the police officer what does his oath tell him to enforce??
its common law , not acts and statutes.
its not about being lawless its about being rid of poverty that things like council tax, tv licences, debt's and etc create.
about being rid of being picked on by the police by whatever reason.(especially when they have no legitimate reason to pick on you)
your all quick to jump on the band wagon to slate it, but if any of you want to get in touch and ask questions i will be happy to.
i will only help people with problems not a way to posess firearms or anything like that.
the whole not registering your child is idiotic as ive had a lot of fun with my birth certificate in council tax courts.
i dont even get council tax bills anymore they know to leave me well alone. the last letter i recieved was from the councils solicitors and why do you think that is?? if you still believe it doesn't work your an idiot because who do you think created these loop hole and who they're intended for and the hint is they aren't commoners and they can pay and bill or fine they recieve, and they'd lose their job if covicted.
until the system is equal, for everyone i will never play that game

wtaylor1986 · 02/01/2015 01:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Alisvolatpropiis · 02/01/2015 08:13

It's ludicrous.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 02/01/2015 09:02

I hope you use no council services then that the rest of us pay for.

The word freeloader springs to mind

Lilymaid · 02/01/2015 09:12

statutes are law of the sea
Bonkers. Love to know what "law dictionary" he is using.

Coco0123 · 02/01/2015 10:06

fanjo yes ! Freeloader is a much more apt term !

Alisvolatpropiis · 02/01/2015 10:48

Still amazed by the gross misunderstanding of what the Magna Carta was and its purpose by one of MN's very own "Freeman".

Rights for everybody? I think not.

LisaMed · 02/01/2015 10:50

wtaylor1986 you are so wrong that it is impossible to start with what you are saying to get to something right.

However, here's a great opportunity to convince me. Explain to me how the Family Law Act 1996 is Admiralty Law.

Link to the Act is here

Spero · 02/01/2015 20:13

hurrah! it's back!

Yes, I too would dearly love to know why the Family Law Act is actually the Law of the Sea.

SunshineBossaNova · 02/01/2015 20:30
Lilymaid · 02/01/2015 21:11

Ah - relationship between Family Law and Law of the Sea. Until 1970 (ish) one of the divisions of the High Court was "Probate Divorce and Admiralty" so perhaps our "expert" is thinking of that. But Admiralty is about ships and Law of the Sea is a term generally used for the international law relating to the sea.

Spero · 02/01/2015 21:14

I read some interesting argument which did come up with 'reasons' why its all really to do with the law of the sea and nothing to do with magic beans and crack, why dear me no.

But sadly I can't now recall any part of that 'argument'.

Lilymaid · 02/01/2015 21:20

Court was informally known as the Court of Wills, Wives & Wrecks. If I was at work I might look further into this, but I'm on the sofa drinking wine and eating chocolate so I can't be *ed.

HolyTerror · 02/01/2015 21:23

WTaylor, could you explain any of that in English? Are you actually suggesting all 'acts and statutes' are maritime law? And that law dictionaries specifically offer those in the know loopholes to avoid the law via strange definitions of common terms?

Spero · 02/01/2015 21:23

Enjoying my child free weekend in a most productive way, watching Lord of the Rings for the 99th time and googling Freeman stuff.

Apparently they think all courts operate under Maritime Law (why? why?) so they will rely on common law and apparently can declare themselves 'lost at sea' ergo legally dead?