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 was reading down waiting to add that anybody who objects to the fact that our government (like all functioning states) reserves a monopoly on the use of force, should try Mogadishu, which has a rather nice climate at this time of year. But I see that Thistledew has already pointed this out. There are still some places out there where no-one will tell you what to do, and where if someone nicks your stuff or murders your brother you just round up a posse to enforce your natural rights. Freemen can feel free to move there. Or work to improve the many flaws of the current system by voting, campaigning, protesting, engaging. Or, you know, waving magic pixie dust over the world, because that could totally work.

Thanks, this has been a very interesting thread.

I noted Brian Gerish named in one of the links which is also interesting from a family law perspective as I think he was in contact with liane Smith before she went to Spain and murdered her children, rather than have them in care.

I also remember Elizabeth Watson. I think she avoided prison because she purged her contempt, not because her freeman arguments worked.

Apparently this is getting to be big business and websites offering freeman law packs are getting lots of hits and making lots of money.

But then these people turn up at court, blether on about the common law and refuse to participate in the court hearing that will determine whether or not they get to care for their child.

It's really scarey and seems to be on the increase.

It seems to be a form of narcissism that has much in common with fanatical religious belief and some extreme health trends: "I have a system that works so much better than the one that all you fools are following". They are characterised by a blindness to the flaws and weaknesses of their own system and and unwillingness to listen to and learn from the experience of thousands of other people.

Its like a kind of parallel universe, an insight into a mind easily and somewhat unfairly led, all muddled in with a bit of googling.

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.

Does she mean using an argument based in common law in a court of equity? If you really want to do that, go to Scotland and appeal to the Court of Session's nobile officium, which is equity based common law.

Common law is the law of the common wealth.

There is a grain of truth in this, in that many Commonwealth jurisdictions apply English law (both common law and statute) via the Privy Council.

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.

Most English common law originated from the Danelaw, not Roman (canon law). Most Roman law was codified - put into statutory form in Roman times - that's how we know about it. It was then resurrected by legal scholars such as the Commentators and Glossators and copied by more modern scholars who went to the Continent to learn the law.

The Danes invaded in the 4th-6th Centuries AD, and the Roman Empire was pretty much over by the 2nd Century AD.

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?

No, there is a presumption in the UK's unwritten constitution which prohibits law making against public policy, and various treaty memberships.

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.

Actually, no. Solicitors, as professionals, are fiduciaries, and their fiduciary duties compel them to act in the best interests of the client. And you can represent yourself in court.

misdcq you might be better off heading north, to Shetland or Orkney, which recognised udal property law and never had feudalism, based on the Scandinavian "Allmansright" but even that doesn't permit damage to property or common land. Alternatively, I'm thinking your comments would make you happier in a inquisitorial system, rather than an adversarial one.

ChelsyHandy I love you for mentioning Danelaw. I would, of course, quibble about a few dates but is the normal give and take of people on the internet talking about rational matters in a rational way. We could discuss what standards and references that we used, we could talk about our conclusions and either agree or agree to disagree. Because that is what people who use rational, logical, clear thinking do! We would both be operating in the real world and using real references.

My experience is that actually solicitors and judges take their duties extremely seriously. The slipshod bits were usually admin people or legal execs (if they are still called that). My experience of the legal practitioners for over a decade included nose to nose arguments with every sizeable legal practice in Leeds and I have been sworn at by some incredibly reputable solicitors but I would very rarely question their professional integrity or good faith.

And has anyone seen the thread about the threat of wifi? Is it tinfoil hat day?

My worry is that the more this government cuts public funding to be represented in court, the more these dangerous loons will pile in to extract more money from the desperate and vulnerable.

I had no idea Dane Law came in that early. It was certainly still in place until much later. How come people went for Dane Law not Anglo-Saxon?

Cross post.

Well, that makes me feel bad for finding this a funny, interesting thread. I take your point, spero.

Sorry, I dont want to detract from your enjoyment of the funny and the interesting as it is both - the 'successes' on the wiki link gives me renewed faith in humanity.

But is there no way to at least regulate people who charge for this tomfoolery? Aren't they offering legal services without appropriate qualifications?

Or in a free society, should people be free to waste money on whatever lunacy floats their boat?

Just seems a real shame not to engage in legal proceedings about your children. The court process will just role on and over all the freeman 'arguments'.

Oh, gosh no! Detract away. It must be incredibly infuriating for you.

(Not sure I can say 'detract away' when it was the point of the thread, anyway! )

*LisaMed I would willingly accept correction of my dates. I find the whole history of legal development fascinating, and if you can guide me to greater accuracy, please feel free to go ahead!

And yes, I have confused the date of the Danelaw with the Anglo-Saxon invasion. But for misdcq 's benefit, it is still much later than Justinian's Code!

I believe the Danelaw was adopted more wholly than the Anglo-Saxon codes for similar reasons that Mercian English was adopted rather than Anglo-Saxon - that it was the leading kingdom at the time of unification or at least provided the leading legal scholars - again historians please correct me if I am wrong!

Oh, I see. I guess the evidence must be very patchy, as with the language. People who study that far back have my respect (but definitely not envy). It makes sense, though.

Nothing that has provoked a discussion of how laws develop can be wholly bad!

It does really help to have even a vague understanding of how it all began. Otherwise you are easy prey to any dickhead with a sense of grievance who blethers on about the manga Carta and sounds very 'clever'.

Go on, then, how did it 'all begin'?!

(Seriously. I would love to understand.)

My understanding of the dates (with respect to reasoned and rational responses and willing to be corrected on this).

Roman Legions left Britain in 410AD, collapse of the Roman Empire in the West usually taken with the deposing of Romulus in 476AD, though you could argue that the Roman Empire continued in the East until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453

Angles, Saxons and Jutes then colonised the former Roman colony. Strathclyde was part of England then. That was probably after the Roman Legions left but I've read (suitable for laymen) books that argue that there was settlement before the final legions left and I've read arguments against. I think Gildas had them settled quite firmly in Britain by around 530, but that could be wrong.

The first Saxon laws were written down after the coming of Christianity and literacy as we understand it, and the earliest Anglo Saxon law code according to Wiki (but I think I've read elsewhere) around 602AD, a law code issued by Athelberg of Kent. IIRC they were mainly about compensation and stolen cattle.

The first Danish raid recorded in England was 793 (I think) but heavier Danish settlement only really started in the next century. After Alfred managed to defeat the invading army of Danes led by Guthrum, they divided the country on a line roughly between London and Chester, north followed the Danish customs and was ruled by the Danes, south was English law and ruled by the English laws and customs. Some of the Danish practices carried on into the Middle Ages. The disruption of the invasion altered the border with Scotland, but it explains the use of English rather than Gaelic in the Border regions.

After the Norman invasion there was the imposition of feudal practice, running parallel to the 'Common Law' or law that was customary to the English/Danish people that were being counted in the Domesday Book.

Gradually the law evolved as it needed to, eventually stopped being held in French and is still based on the Anglo Saxon practices of juries and magistrates etc. (with caveats and reservations especially now they are playing around with it so much). It is very different from law codes based on Roman Law such as the canon law that ruled the church and the laws in places like France and Italy.

At least, that is my understanding. There are no secret handshakes. There is no real separation between statute and common law. The people who use these arguments have been scammed and are likely the least likely to acknowledge it. I'm going off to have serious alcohol.

OOh, thank you!

Have a or stronger on me.

Thank you! This has been a most excellent thread. My knowledge is pretty hazy pre 1500 - such a shame this isn't routinely taught in schools, I only came across the history of law as one of my final year options in a law degree. I think we all need at least some understanding of how our society came into being and how our laws work.

I wish we were taught it more. I should be embarrassed. I'm a medievalist (late, though!) and I've studied Anglo-Saxon England ... but never the laws.

And before I take to drink - I am not a history professional. I am not legally trained though I have been exposed to legal practice. I can accept that the average person will not necessarily know all the ins and outs of all the legal complexities and the historical layers.

My education was in very poor schools and at school I only learned about history for the period after 1870. I have no qualifications in medieval history. I have read a lot of books but I would say I was an interested amateur that easily learned the basic outline of how our law evolved. If I had my own money earned by my hard work resting on the ability of these clowns to get me off based on their dodgy ideas I would hope I would look at some basic textbooks and check that what was being promoted was somewhere else in reality. You can check the original text and a decent translation of the Magna Carta here at the British Library.

I am happy for better and more educated souls to correct me and point me in the right direction. This is because I am not a fruit loop (at least in this matter)

LisaMed I really enjoyed that, thank you!

What about Hengist and Horsa? We were told they were among the first Anglo-Saxon settlers, as they were brought over by the English kings as paid soldiers and settled.

Also I checked my dates with wiki and I was really out on the fall of the Roman Empire in the West...

Yes all this discussion on law is fascinating.

But I'm still wanting to know what the baby's name was. Can't you write it in crayon and upload a photo OP?

They're sort of legandified, aren't they?

(Disclaimer, nicked from spero, happy to be corrected because not a fruit loop ).

FWIW, I just asked DH (ancient history grad) and he says people argue loads about the date of the fall of the Roman empire anyway. He also acknowledges he may be adding to the sum total of ignorance.