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?

I had a freeman attempt to have me charged with perjury.
He actually walked into a police station and kicked off until a detective agreed to take the bit of paper with his complaint on it.
I was then interviewed informally by CID who quickly saw the lay of the land and told him to take a hike. He wasn't keen on that so then tried to make a complaint with police HQ about the detective being corrupt.

Funnily enough his distate of the establishment didn't extend to the benefits system.

Do they know they won;t get any child benefit for the kid? Bet that will make them register her.

I haven't met anyone like this, I have a cousin who believes the queen is a lizard but otherwise I do live a sheltered life.

Very confusing.

Surely though not wearing a helmet to thumb your nose at the establishment is a special kind of stupidity. I mean the non helmet wearing is the only one risking being hurt. If they refuse health care as well. Oh dear.

I vaguely remember having a case where someone insisted on describing himself as Dave of the Jones Family (or whatever). I knew he was crackers but I didn't realise it was a movement.

" and not registering a birth is fine to them since they don't believe in school or medicine either. Its the crackpot version of in for a penny, in for a pound."

Does that mean no antenatal care and unattended births, then? Plus OTC contraception only (or do they attempt to go without money too?) That doesn't sound like it's particularly good for "free women" on a basic level.

In a Darwinian sense it's good if these types don't wear helmets when cycling, at least until they have children. Get their genes out of the pool.

I can well imagine that these people believe they will do fine without state education (and perhaps many of them will). The same attitude applies to state medical provision - probably the would turn to herbs and alternative medicine, which also has its advantages.

There are many ways to manage your life without cash transactions as well. Barter and exchange systems are on the increase.

But if the child breaks a leg, or worse? And as someone else said, what if their home catches fire? Will they still want to be independent from the system then?

I know people like this and they really grip my shit, as a friend of mine would say.

These people were v v much the dog hair shirt and alternative medicine and home edding types. Thing is I have these tendencies myself (to a far lesser degree) but still feel it's important to be part of society, not just to reap the benefits but to be able to help it function and also to try and change it where necessary.

I have a unisex name, and although my birth certificate is correct, my national insurance number was issued to Mr XX YY rather than Miss XX YY. That was complicated enough to sort out, but necessary as obviously once I started to do things like claim Statutory Maternity Pay, it might have got a little awkward...

I am an anarchist! I am an anarchist!

I'll be back shortly to explain more however I have to bell the DWP now as me child benefit ain't been paid in.

MadScientists It's amazing what they can do nowadays

Lots of people who claim to be freeman are wrong in what they say and have actual been prosecuted, mainly due to bringing up the wrong arguments in court for example lots of people try arguing common law in a statutory court which won't work as it's different jurisdiction, think of it as McDonald's if you are working for them and they say you did something against their policy, could you argue against that and say that subway policy say you can do what they say your doing wrong? No, of course not, wrong jurisdiction and wrong company.

Common law is the law of the common wealth.
Statutory law is the law of the UK which is a democracy, it's not a land mark, if your not happy with the rules of the democracy then leave, take your name of the voting register, stop using your national inductance number.
A democracy is the will of the people.

Note that I don't mean leave country as the UK ant a country it's a nation.

Britain is a island, country and is the land mark.

Their is other thing you would need to know to do with trust law, natural law (the true law of the land) and contract law before you try any of this.

Also it's to my understanding we are all born free and as we are mankind then we must be free-man or wo(men) if we aren't free then what are we? Slaves? We are free or we must be slaves their no in between it's one or the other.

Please do your research I would advise you start here www.deanclifford.info

Cycling helmets are not a legal requirement!

WRT to the OP, unless the mother received no antenatal care and freebirthed it us pretty unlikely that no-one will notice that the baby has not been registered.

I would be inclined to report them TBH, fair enough if they want to hold those beliefs, but they are almost certainly going to be damaging to their daughter.

Micqdc - If you live in a country then you are subject to its laws - statute or otherwise. There is no secret handshake that gets you out of that. Natural law is something you see in documentaries about lions killing gazelles.

The poor judges having to deal with this rubbish.

I remember something very similar coming into the court where I worked years and years ago. This was someone who had mental health problems rather than a very distorted and incorrect view of the law, but it was passed around the staff so we could stare and marvel. I imagine the court staff are on the floor laughing at some of the stuff linked on here.

And do some fucking research on what common law actually is. It is the interpretation and elaboration of statute law that has evolved and the precedents set over the centuries. Precedents from common law are often enacted later in statute law.

(I can cope with some of the idiocy of the lack of legal knowledge but the fucked up way that the history of the law of the UK is distorted really makes my teeth itch)

LisaMed - common law came around way before the first statue law.
common law originated from roman cannon law. common law are law that come out of courts in forms called case law.

as for natural law, if I said im going to go rape your wife and kids are you going to be ok with that? no, of course not, you know its wrong you naturally know that, that's what natural law is. its not a man made law.
the government says pay tax and if you don't what happens? you get officers kicking down your door and beats you up and drags you to the station. isn't that assault? kidnap? vandalism?
murder, kidnap and other crimes are fine when its in way of government isn't it?

article 1 of the universal declaration of human right says that all human are born free an equal, so if we are free than how could the government tell us what to do?
if we where equal then can one man tell another man what to do?

do you believe the government can pass laws on anything they want?
can they pass a law which say that government and MPs can rape you and it will be ok because the law says it does?
can they outlaw gravity?

can you vote away my right? and if so would they of been rights?

obviously judges and lawyers would laugh at us, they are all part of the bar association they all work together, and they all get paid, they hire cops to pull you over and fine you so you will hire a lawyer to battle it out. their 1st duty is to the bar and the courts never to their client.

also you need to do research on what the difference is between a country and a nation.

Aren't you just agreeing it's been superseded (if that is indeed true, I've no idea, just confused by the idea that if something has been replaced, you can still use it).

I don't follow why you think 'free' means 'independent of all laws', either.

(No idea why I am responding to this, I know nothing about the law, it's just mind-bogglingly odd and I am drawn to it all.)

Common law did not fucking originate from cannon law wtf are you actually talking about? I am so fucking outraged at that insult to British History I cannot say what I think or I would end being utterly banned. Where the actually fuck do you get that deluded idea from? Was it a book written in fucking crayon?

Cannon law was based on Justinian. Cannon law was different from the legal system used by Anglo Saxon Britain (which, in Kent, was one of the first barbarian kingdoms to codify their legal system aka fucking statute). Common law is currently, like now, in the real world where people are not on glue, the record of previous judgements and practices that have evolved from fucking statute.

Your version of natural law still seems a bit 'lion and gazelles' to me, but I am not up to speed on the whole philosophical debate and it really has nothing to do with the legal system as it operates. You are still subject to the law of the land (you know, the stuff in the legal books that anyone can read - and most can read because of the education provided by state sanctioned taxes) when you live in a state. If you don't like it, leave and live on a Pacific island. Stay and you are subject to those laws because there is no loophole that says that you are not.

By the way, the government in theory could pass the laws on anything, including a prosecution on anyone denying the moon was tapioca. Deal with it. They could indeed pass a law outlawing gravity. People would snigger and it would have no effect. This is real life. You may like to consider why they have not done so.

In other news, the world is not flat.

Have just dealt with one of these delightful people through work. Apparently off-roading on sites of special scientific interest because almost all land in the UK is common land. And walkers/riders/cyclists/school groups have no more right on rights of ways than 4 by 4s cause once you could ride horses anywhere and vehicles are the modern horses. Oh and I was stupid and opening myself up to prosecution by not agreeing with him.

A few hours of my life I won't get back.

I can't believe someone confused Cannon Law with Common Law. In the Middle Ages the two were kept firmly apart and had completely separate courts.

If you are going to talk utter and complete fart products you should at least avoid stuff that is in the basic history textbooks.

BarbarianMum I really, really feel your pain. Did they tell you that they paid your wages?

well I have glanced through the replies and get the gist.
however rather than dismissing these people as nutters and overgrown teenagers ( I do happen to know one ) I think we should be grateful to them as a symptom of a system/society where people are free to believe what they want. which we are bloody lucky to live in.

LRDtheFeministDragon - I can understand you point of view and the clarify what I mean by free is that we can go around as we please and do as we whish and exercise our right which are that we have the rights to life, liberty and property but if you went and stole someone's property or damaged them then your infringing on their right and we all naturally know that's wrong.

you have to understand that and interaction with other people is a contract, so what if we don't want to contract with government? that's what its all about

you will actually find that 95% of people who are in the freeman movement of any over movement similar are actually more responsible for them self and have more respect for other people and try to live an honourable life.

so to summarise all that we basically want to get away from laws that don't involve harming people or something like that, for example not paying income tax, doesn't harm anyone.

I'm not legally trained, but I'm familiar with a lot of it, and I got all nostalgic reading that document from Judge Rooke in Canada. I miss the quality of fruit loop that I used to deal with.