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?

Slinky I think you have something there.

There is a pattern emerging. Someone comes on here and posts in ALL CAPS. I ask them to explain in plain English. They disappear.

As the fmotl seem to have been comprehensively canned by Canadian authorities, I think we will be seeing more of the legal name fraud horse apples.

btw We'Re bank is also up there with this lot, but is actually out and out fraud.

Come back, I'm injured, I'm lying on the sofa unable to move. I need entertainment!

Oh I was so excited to see this thread had been revived... and then so disappointed to see the deleted posts :(

Such a let down.

CAN I SAY I KNOW EVERYTHING AS WELL?

I MAY NOT KNOW EVERYTHING BUT I KNow how to turn the caps lock off.

I KNOW NOTHING!

Every time this thread revives, I keep thinking "why, oh why, can't I meet one of these bozos". It would be such fun!!

I just wish they would come back and explain the whole admiralty law thing in plain English.

Best. Thread. Ever.

LisaMed1 Preferably in all caps, for that air of calm authority.

More crazy connections/history of this kind of 'ideology' :

www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/gavin-long-sovereign-citizen-posse-comitatus-patriot-militias?%3F%3F

Beagadorsrock the comments on that article make me (a) extremely worried and (b) reluctant to travel to the US

I KNOW NAAATHING, Mr Fawlty!

Dear reflectionist

where did I put my car keys?

Thank you

This has been a huge but very entertaining and informative thread!

Im placemarking just in case Martin Lewis jumps on to say this is actually all true and I can stop paying any taxes I dont like :D

I used to work for a company where we'd bill customers for a product they'd used. Had the odd 'freeman of the land' write in to say they didn't have to pay their bills. Ours solicitors told them in no uncertain terms they had to be or would be taken to court. Can't remember much about it but I think these people were quoting some completely irrelevant laws that actually didn't at all mean they didn't have to pay their debts

This is one of my favourite zombie threads, love re-reading it when it pops up from time to time

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE PEOPLE, SUCH AS MYSELF, WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE, AND WHEREBY NO AUTHORITY CAN TELL ME ANYTHING BECAUSE I AM UNBELIEVABLY DENSE AND CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRUE FACT AND A HOPELESS FANTASY.

quoting some completely irrelevant laws - admirality law seems to be a common favourite.

The only fmotl I've ever met seemed fairly normal at first. Until he turned the conversation to the fact that he didn't consent to being named, therefore doesn't actually have a name and can't be taken to court unless he ever officially 'accepts' his name. I assure you, it was a hilarious debate to be having, but I wouldn't want to have that person in my life on a more permanent basis. It just came across that he had issues with authority, social convention and taking ownership of his actions.

Brilliant I love 'the I don't consent or contract' defence.

Policeman: " You are under arrest"
Darren of the family Pollard: " I neither consent or contract".
Policeman "Don't worry, you don't have to."

apparently they believe that words written in caps have a different meaning. Unfortunately I can't figure out what it's supposed to be, as all links are blocked by work IT, as bollocks and potentially dangerous.

Conspiracy, I tell you!

How can words in caps have a different meaning? Seriously?

Ooh ooh I found it:

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)

For purposes of understanding one's legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS -Capitis Diminutio Maxima- in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards & statements, loans, mortgages, speeding & parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

Of course Black's Law Dictionary says no such thing and capacity has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the use of CAPS. But never mind that ..

Right, so capital letters are baaaad? Except for when they're being used to say I KNOW EVERYTHING, which is when they are good?

Have I got that about right?

Hang on, all caps makes something lesser. So why do they post on here in all caps, which apparently makes things lesser? Is it the only way to communicate with lesser mortals?

The Latin 'capitis' refers to the head, not to capital letters. Capital letters are named capital letters because the monks put stonking great letters at the head (caput is latin for head) of the page when copying manuscripts.

And another thing - this capitis diminutio maxima, it doesn't belong to Common Law. It's from Roman Law. You know, not the ancient freeman but the book-learned overlord. If I've got it right (open for the really knowledgeable to correct me), the whole capitis diminution thingy was carved into Roman Law before there was even a difference between upper and lower case letters.

Roman law has never been a part of English Common Law. It's been used to inform statutes and law codes from the king, taken in to Scottish Law, carried on almost without a break in some places like Aquitaine until the Code Napoleon took over and of course informed church law, but you can't quote it as part of the argument to use only Common fucking Law.

I need more gin.