‘Sovereign’ citizens in the UK: a study in nonsense

There is a group of people in the UK who believe that, by submitting a document to the government, they can detach themselves from society and thereby avoid all statutory responsibilities. They are predominantly male, intelligent, articulate, and for some reason seem to live in the south-west of England. They call themselves ‘sovereign citizens’ or ‘freemen on the land’, and seem to be a small offshoot from a much larger US-based movement (of which more on the excellent Quatloos! forum). I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of them: despite the number of videos on YouTube, they seem to boil down to a few relatively high-profile individuals. In this article I’ll just refer to them as ‘sovereigns’—you know, as if that actually means something—and try to explain why they really, really get my goat.

I’m not going to delve into the bizarre beliefs held by these people in this post. Suffice it to say that the most prominent British proponent of this nonsense is David Icke (yes, that David Icke). There’s a great article at RationalWiki with all the gory details, but here are some highlights. (feel free to skip this bit to avoid a brain spasm)

  • Legislation can only be enforced by consent (‘Pay your tax!’ ‘But I don’t want to!’ ‘Oh, OK.’)
  • The capitalisation and punctuation of your name is really, really important (this is why you’ll often see them referring to themselves as ‘Firstname: of the family Lastname’)
  • Arcane uses of language make massive legal differences (e.g. ‘understand’ = ‘stand under’ = ‘accept’)
  • Law courts only operate under admiralty law (or something)
  • The government is a corporation that’s constantly trying to coerce people to enter into contracts with it

This is obviously all nonsense and is barely worthy of discussion: much like creationism, the arguments are so stretched, groundless and specious that they often leave me speechless in wonderment at how an intelligent person could believe such things. The RationalWiki article does a pretty good job of ploughing through this particular field of assorted detritus. Like all conspiracy nutters, sovereigns will respond to criticism with comments like ‘wake up! open your eyes! don’t live like a sheep!’ but will of course be unable to defend the indefensible, except with more reams of pseudo-legal gibberish.

Sovereigns in the US invariably combine their eccentric world view with any number of conspiracy theories. I don’t know what the opinions of their British counterparts might be, but the aforementioned Mr Icke certainly fits the pattern. It seems that sovereigns often believe stuff like

  • The 11th September 2001 attacks were a government operation/inside job/never happened
  • A super-secret organisation called the NWO, or possibly the Illuminati, runs the world
  • President Obama was born outside the US (what’s a conspiracy lunatic without a bit of latent racism?)
  • Vaccines are harmful (don’t get me started on this one…)
  • Fluoride in the water is a method of government mind control
  • …insert more bat-shit-insane stuff here…

Now I’m not suggesting that the more refined British sovereign is quite that mad—and I can only hope that we’ll never see this sort of thing in the UK—but they do seem to have the capacity to wind me up. ‘Why?’ you might ask, ‘isn’t it all just harmless nonsense?’ Well, not in my opinion it isn’t.

My problem with sovereigns is twofold. There’s the question of their motivation, which I’ll come to in a minute, but from a more practical standpoint there is the vastly disproportionate amount of public money and resources consumed by different parts of local and national government, who are trying to wade through reams of meaningless drivel trying to figure out exactly what’s going on. This video of a man wasting a Magistrates’ Court’s time is a good example: leaving aside the issue that making the video is illegal, the court was at a standstill while its beleaguered staff tried to work out exactly what this man wanted. In Birkenhead (yes, I know it’s not in the south-west), someone thinks he managed to arrest a judge (obviously nothing interesting happened apart from lots of shouting and an expensive police presence). A guy called Ben Lowrey (who I actually quite like, despite everything) is suing the police because he doesn’t think that UK legislation applies to him, particularly when it comes to his motorbike. When he loses his frivolous case, the police will have to count the cost of his self-styled ‘experiment’. He’s also been sued for non-payment of income tax; one can only hope that, when the judge gets fed up with his sovereign schlock, his debt will be paid. Meanwhile, time and money is wasted. Public time and public money: the kind that fills pot-holes and employs medics. The sovereigns have a temporarily illusion that their little malarkey is working while the authorities waste their time and money trying to comprehend the incomprehensible.

And this brings me to the question of motivation. I do leave it as an open question, because I really don’t know whether these people are simply misguided or actually greedy. I say this because every case I’ve come across involves money. If they wanted to make their point and maybe even set a precedent, it would be far more honourable to test the waters with a case about, say, possession of cannabis. If Ben sued because the police took away his dope instead of his motorbike, it would still be a colossal waste of time but I wouldn’t be able to question his motives (and I am not for a moment suggesting that Ben dabbles in illicit substances; it was merely an example). However, the police seized Ben’s bike because he had no insurance; he’s also being sued for income tax; the guy in the Mags’ Court refuses to pay his council tax; this guy, ditto; same again here. In the US, the sovereign movement is tied up with so-called ‘tax protestors‘, who use all sorts of bizarre arguments to avoid paying what they owe. It looks a lot like the British contingent might have the same aim in mind.

A little knowledge, as the saying goes, is a dangerous thing. Sovereigns remind me of people in their late teens who, having learned a bit about the world, start to put things together in new and exciting ways. Everyone remembers coming up with fantastic ideas with which they could take over the whole world. I had a friend who came out of an A-level physics class determined to use that hour’s acquired facts to design a new kind of coffee cup that would make him the richest man alive. When sovereigns start talking about corporations and contracts and straw men, they might as well be teenage law students who have cherry-picked quotes from law textbooks to construct their own reality. Sadly, the world just isn’t that much fun. There are no aliens in Area 51, Elvis really is dead, Diana died in an accident, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, and British citizens are subject to British legislation. Sorry guys, but in the end you’ll have to pay your dues, just like everyone else.

Further reading

Edit 4-Sep-2013: see a summary of the best published and unpublished comments on this post.

75 Comments

Filed under law, rants

75 Responses to ‘Sovereign’ citizens in the UK: a study in nonsense

  1. Aw bless. A law student telling us how it is

  2. Brandybuck

    I see nothing wrong in trying to reduce and avoid ones tax burden. I see nothing wrong with protesting taxes themselves. I don’t even have a problem with folks arguing to abolish all taxes. But there is a universe of difference between avoiding taxes and evading taxes. The former is legal, the latter is criminal fraud. Sov’runs evade taxes by bamboozling the authorities.

    I have great respect for the man who engages in civil disobedience by not paying taxes. But I have no respect for a man who cheats the system with legalistic mumbo-jumbo.

    • flup

      I agree with you to a certain extent, but I believe that one should pay one’s fair share according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

      I also have respect for those that protest using legitimate arguments, but if you choose to stop paying tax then you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

  3. Pingback: The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems | Legal Bizzle | Business Blogs and News

  4. Pingback: The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems | LETTER EXAMPLES

  5. Pingback: Law News Asia » Blog Archive » The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems

  6. Pingback: The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems | Lawyer News & Information

  7. Pingback: A woo miscellany « The Bizzle

  8. Hey, guess what, you’re going up against the system – you’re going to get a fair amount of resistance not only directly from it, but also from the hangers-on and fringe-beneficiaries. Shock, surprise, falls-on-floor. That this article couldn’t be more dismissive nor ignorant of the basic facts of what has been uncovered should not come as a surprised to anyone. Still, exposure to the at least the idea of lawful rebellion is enough to make it a minor victory. Regardless of technicalities, the ability to answer simple questions like ‘who really owns your car’, ‘what is the definition of a person’, why does it say ‘i promise to pay’ on bank notes, ‘where does money really come from’, ‘why is a statute not actually a law’ and so on should be a massive, overwhelming national concern, and certainly it should not be limited to a smug, dismissive and sadly rather ignorant ‘debate’ on an otherwise lovely day.

    • flup

      Lovely day? Have you looked outside? :)

      Aside from that heinous factual error, I’m not going to comment further; your own words speak loudly and clearly.

  9. Jamie

    I suggest you do real research before sprouting a load of BS on this pathetic blog.

    I will give you a week

    Time to wake up!

  10. felonious monk

    @ flup… i did as you suggest sir, and came into this awareness of the actual requirement and why, which is demonstrating full honour at law, not evasion as many you rightly malign are in actuality attempting… some of us are becoming what they wish and govern us for… statutes are for the children at law, behave above that standing and it must be reciprocated by them… they govern and manifest control for god, indirectly, regardless as to your beliefs… and do so in the desire to manifest peace upon the earth and respect for all life and not by claiming things as our own, we have beneficial use of anything in the world but not OF the world, of implies possession and is not allowed, despite your present belief on the matter, you can pay for the use of something and if you step out of line there is a charge to recoup the costs of bringing you back into line… this is what they (tptb) manifest control through the pocket of the child at law… and rightfully so in my opinion, they cannot injure you as you are the direct lineage of god (in their eyes although they consider us all less than that) until we demonstrate that they treat us with contempt…
    all law is common law, that which is understood by everyone regardless as to whom you are, in truth its what you allow/make/enforce, providing you remain in honour and divinity at all times… we are gods children by law, when we grow up, we manifest destiny and we are the law… the majority cannot handle this, are not truly fit and require control, hence governance… there is no requirement for governance when you act in honour at ALL times… as you act above the law, irreproachable, unimpeachable… like judges should be and probably once were when they used to fill their tents with smoke of a certain kind, to give them connection to divinity and make their judgements clearly and in right order… somewhere it got ****ed up and corruption set in… i put it to you sir, that, if someone has access to the honey pot without true self control (full honour and respect for ALL) or some form of oversight from their peers then the likelihood is they will eat too much lol and help themselves whilst the majority remain in ignorance, this is whats happened i feel with regard to the creeping and out of control out of controlness that is apparent in their circles in the wider world, which by your ignorant comments espousing the views you apparently hold, you cant be arsed becoming party to the facts… you choose instead to remain with merely an arbitrary opinion as your stance..!?! grow up sir and stop seeing all as the same, for they are most certainly not… some of us are honourable and are becoming what they wish us to be… in truth, we ALL need to become the new judges and act in unimpeachable manner then we can stand up and be counted for what we are… the righteous… we are the lineage of god whatever and whomsoever that turns out to be, we are the law… as i say, how many do you know whom could fill that role in its actuality… i posted a note today about epicurus, he knew or had a very good idea of how to be… although things are a little different in this day and age, in truth there is merely more temptation to stray from divinity and respect for all life, and far more fiscal pressures heaped upon those whom are being kept in the dark purposefully by those seeking to use the system to manifest tyranny… the bankers, and from 1772 the legal profession, (following a trust law case in which the lawyers became aware of the rule of 72 and joined this dark control. research it if you dont believe it, the case lasted for 60yrs i believe if memory serves me right… i will attempt to provide the link should you demonstrate yet more ignorance by not being arsed to look, but i cant make you see what your eyes have to read or watch to grasp this), this is what has happened and they are out of control within their own ranks, this is shown by the two judges whom stated it “was unfortunate but necessary” of the birkenhead matter and the resulting attempted any person arrest of a man impersonating a judge, a Mr. peake, (by someone known as rusty whom as you suggest, has stood many times before the courts for cannabis and who knows the law and his rights at law), whom failed to acknowledge a queens writ (prior decision of a british court) and whom sought to manifest a continuance of the dark control going on by acting outside of the law… so those, or some of those with honour and decency, used article 61 the magna carta in the manner it was written for to bring an aberrant criminal cartel to heel… some of them know what i say is true, they dont like it but can do nothing as they are officers of the court and have to do as they are ordered regardless as to whether the orders are legal or Lawful, and judge peakes were outside of the law in my opinion… if we are to be the law and require no governance then there can be no aberrance of full honour and divinity… in effect for us to become the law and need no governance then we have to become gods walking the earth with respect for ALL life, in every form it takes… we are in the beginnings of our teenage angst mode as a whole, something you rightly acknowledge and notice… i’m sure it will be the same as kevin and perry for a while… we grow up, and they (tptb) like adults, become children as they age, as is being noticed in the wider world by the one people, by their (tptb’s) acts, words and deeds… this teenager becoming adult will end in transition and the swapping of roles, but will likely be messy as many who are aware have not yet reached this full honour but feel that they have… we the children at law all grown up, will then govern the new becoming children, with full honour and respect for how they have made us change… thats about it… ; ) make of that what you will sir… but i stood before the crown for what you suggested, and the case lasted 4.5 years for many reasons, with only the last 16 months of it, with one’s self standing or attempting to with full honour and respect, despite living with actual but slightly mistaken honour for far longer than that (almost 17yrs) prior to putting the last few pieces in place… this i eventually demonstrated to them and i assisted them to settle the matter causing them difficulty, on their commercial books in a manner that was mutually agreeable to both one’s self and the state…
    instead of remaining with arbitrary opinion, why dont you become au fait with the facts of the various matters you appear to have no idea of… this is my truth, and i stood before the crown for 46 or more hearings to example this honour and my truth… they hadnt got issue with it, so why the **** should you… ?

    [slightly edited for language]

    • flup

      I’ve left it a few weeks before I reply to this one. I have given as much time as I am able to parsing your thousand-word sentence and I am still none the wiser. Your comment reads much like the documents of which freeman are so fond: confused, verbose and impenetrable.

      • felonious monk

        you are having a laugh my friend, you should try a little harder and you may just grasp what the english language is for – to assist in understanding..! its pretty clear, should you attempt to read it… to critique something you in fact asked for, in such a slack manner, shows you weren’t asking in reality, you were just being an annoying dork… i took the time to explain the situ to you and the best you can do with all that was provided is complain about length and grammar… i had you down as a thinker, apparently not… ; )

        • flup

          You make my point very well: language aids understanding; to be precise, the rules of language do this. I didn’t reply in bad faith, because I honestly couldn’t understand the points you were making. Believe me, it wasn’t for want of effort. From the little I can gather, your comment addresses how things should be, as well as how things actually are (at least in your mind). My original post only addressed the latter, so I will ignore your philosophical points.

          There is one point I’d like to put to you. You assert that you settled your four-and-a-half-year case ‘in a manner that was mutually agreeable to both one’s self and the state’. If the case lasted that long, I’d expect there to be a transcript of the final judgment, which I would very much like to read. Absent that judgment, I simply don’t believe you. You are making a big claim, and as the claimant you shouldn’t be expected to be believed without evidence.

          If I said that a judge rubbished all this ‘freeman’ stuff, I’d expect to be asked for evidence, and in fact I can provide just that (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC B15 (Fam) from 17).

      • Steve

        Well all it seems your here for is to belittle people and make yourself look big and clever when you have just done the opposite. Anyone researching anything posted on this page will see the truth and not believe the drivel you spout. All I can say to anyone on this page is look into it yourself on YouTube and not on biast pages like this.

        • flup

          Thanks for your comment. In reply I would advise anyone interested in this subject to eschew YouTube. It is no more authoritative than I am. Instead I would point to the copious evidence suggesting that ‘freeman’ theory is nonsense, and the absence of any examples of the theory being recognised in any court anywhere.

          I find it endlessly fascinating how many angry and abusive comments I get (the abusive ones don’t get approved). You’d think adherents of this stuff would want to prove their case and convince me that I’m wrong, but instead they spend their time finding more and more imaginative ways to insult, degrade, dismiss, abuse and (occasionally) threaten me.

          In short, I don’t need to do anything to make myself look clever. My commenters do it for me :)

          • Stephen

            After reading more of you educated comments you seem to fail to grasp the difference between certain words legal and lawful! I will take your legal points and take them to a court of law to watch them fall apart after all the meaning for legal is unlawful is it not? These are just a few of the words used to try and confuse the normal person whilst trying to make solicitors/ barristers look clever

          • flup

            Do you promise that you’ll appear in court? Can I come and watch?

          • Stephen

            Well looks like the joke is on you as I am taking court action against a so called legal loan that is far from it. And if you want to believe anything that comes from county court or magistrates court more fool you they are admin bulk centres with NO jurisdiction under the law. So yes I would love to see your smart arse in court preferable as the defence as I have some lovely paperwork that stop you in your tracks

  11. paulo

    Ben Lowrey, from what I could gather from his videos, is 21 and living with his folks. Yet he owns 60000 pounds in back taxes. I knew taxes were high in western Europe, but is that really possible??

    • flup

      It’s hard to say without speculating too much. Working backwards though, HMRC can charge penalties of up to 100% of the tax due in really egregious cases, plus daily late fees on tax returns, plus they charge interest on late payments. Even if they didn’t go that far, I’m guessing that much of the £60k is in penalties of one kind or another.

      This is all guesswork, as I have no idea what he does for a living, but… If he’s been (say) self-employed since he was 18, that’s (say) £15k tax per year. By my reckoning he’d need to earn about £60k/year to rack up that kind of liability. A hell of a lot for his age but not implausible.

      Of course, if there are other kinds of tax involved, particularly if we’re talking about unpaid VAT (sales tax), all bets are off. Like I said, all guesswork. All I can say is that the correspondence he shows in his videos looks real enough.

  12. Ike

    The article did not convince me. The sovs are within their rights and more research is needed on your part to make convincing argument. Good try though

    • flup

      It all depends on what you mean by ‘within their rights’. If you mean some nebulous idea of what you think their rights should be, then you’ve missed the point entirely. My point is that their position has absolutely no basis nor validity under UK or EU law.

  13. Legal definition of a society is a group of people governed by MUTUAL CONSENT! I have an Inalienable Right to life & a Lawful right to protest which supersede all written Legislation that’s given the force of law by the consent of the governed! (Which i never did!) If it doesn’t exist then explain the Llantrisant Freemen!
    Im Welsh & my country & Heritage has been attacked by you Anglo Saxons since you got here & obviously nothing has changed… Except my Language is dying so have to learn yours to be able to defend myself. See the Welsh Not/ trechary of the Blue Books. I can go on for ever & would fight for MY Rights in Court any day… Crown Court not Magistrate… How else would I get a fair trial.
    Ps Solicitors first duty is to the Court so don’t be supprised if they don’t support you!

  14. The only dribble I can see is this narrow minded status quo based argument.. Don’t let the people with better understanding of life make you angry.. I will sue the police if they ever take my dope son!!!

    • flup

      Your reference to the status quo suggests that you think I’m writing about how things should be. In fact I’m writing about how things *are*, and how all this freeman nonsense is simply a veiled excuse for selfish people to avoid their civic responsibilities. That’s what makes me angry.

      If you do sue the police, and in the unlikely event that your claim makes it as far as a court, I do hope you’ll come back and let me know when and where your case will be heard. I’d so love to watch you in action.

  15. Steve

    To whoever wrote this you speak as though you know everything. When merely you are voicing your opinion. You have no proof that Diana was killed in an accident nor do you have proof that the 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Your rant is pointless and you are just another mis guided individual. You think the world is black and white you get told something so to you that is the truth how does that make any sense. A sovereign is merely a human being with a mind of their own. It’s not about money!

    • flup

      Having reviewed the evidence of both tragedies, I am absolutely satisfied that neither involved any kind of government conspiracy. You assert that I ‘get told something so to [me] that is the truth’, but it takes much more than this for me to believe it to be so. ‘Sovereigns’, on the other hand, are willing to throw out hundreds of years of legal scholarship on the basis of a few unsourced and self-referential articles in the darker corners of the Internet. I maintain my position that money is at the centre of all this: the person who commented shortly after you made reference to ‘parking tickets, council tax and gas bills’ which came as no surprise at all.

      • Steve

        Another laughable comment but then I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I guess you didn’t look hard at either incident?? The proof that 9/11 was done by Zionist’s over terrorists is over whelming (lose change etc) and as for Diana more like British secret service as she was pregnant by dodi fayed (allegedly) and she couldn’t cover that one up as she had with prince Harry or all the affairs she had whilst married (about 6 different men that we know) so unless you have researched properly its best not to comment with the drivel of an uneducated man

        • flup

          ‘Loose Change’ was hilarious, and has been debunked more widely, thoroughly and rigorously than I could ever hope to do myself. Only the credulous, naïve and intellectually lazy circle around its insinuations and intangibles.

          But of course I work for the government, spreading disinformation and propaganda while taking money paid into an offshore account from a dark bank controlled by the security services at the behest of Israel, the Masons, the World Bank and a shady cabal of bankers, oligarchs and a powerful man in Swindon called Keith. Or do I?

  16. J S

    “= ‘stand under’ = ‘accept’)
    Law courts only operate under admiralty law (or something)
    The government is a corporation that’s constantly trying to coerce people to enter into contracts with it

    This is obviously all nonsense and is barely worthy of discussion: much like creationism, the arguments are so stretched, groundless and specious that they often leave me speechless in wonderment at how an intelligent person could believe such things. ”

    I am sorry but you cannot make a statement like the above.. why is it obviously the case that it is all nonsense? If it is, then people would not be successfully using commercial law to get out of parking tickets, council tax and their gas bills.. These are people who do a great deal of research.. do your own, if it they are wrong, so be it.. but at least participate in some form of peer-review instead of just slagging it off as rubbish.. it shows you are pretty closed minded..

    • flup

      Not every theory is worthy of respect; there are people that still believe the Earth is not moving or rotating (like this guy, and I challenge you not to laugh). It is possible for things to be ‘obviously nonsense’ in that they go against all available evidence and respectable scholarship. So it is with ‘sovereign’ theory. I presume you have followed all the links in my post, written by people far better qualified than me, and similarly denounced their opinions?

      I do not believe that anyone has successfully used a ‘sovereign’ argument which on its own has allowed them to avoid their liability (or responsibility, if I was being more judgemental). Debt collectors sometimes give up in the face of a paper avalanche, but this is not evidence that what is written on that paper has any value. Show me a judgment or transcript of a case where the court accepted ‘sovereign’ arguments and I will publicly reverse my position in a contrite and humble article.

      • @Flup Just because your not intelligent enough to understand what a sovereign citizen is, or about the “inalienable rights” your born with, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
        Poor boy, Is all this cognitive dissonance effecting your world view?

        • flup

          I make no statement about the set of rights one may or may not be born with (although I challenge anyone to come up with the list which would be agreed universally). My position, as I have stated repeatedly, is that ‘sovereign’ arguments are not valid in the context of UK law (or US law for that matter).

          And in the spirit of one ad hominem deserving another: if you’re going to question my intelligence, it’s probably best if you learn the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’, and ‘effecting’ and ‘affecting’.

          • Mike

            Your affectivly correct. Blame my barbaric uneducated Welsh upbringing ;)
            InaLIENable (Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor/ Lien = the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance (LEGAL liability not Lawful) against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt (Contract))
            My rights are unwritten (As a freeman I stand under Common Law & will not cause loss or harm to anyone), To write my rights down would be a contradiction of having inalienable rights although I would consider writing an affidavit.

          • flup

            Umm… if I read that correctly, you’re suggesting that those two words have something to do with one another. ‘Inalienable’ comes from ‘in’ (negating prefix) + French ‘aliénable’ (capable of being transferred to the ownership of another). ‘Lien’ ultimately comes from the Latin ‘ligare’ (to bind). There is no evidence at all that the ‘lien’ in ‘inalienable’ is etymologically (or legally) significant. There are several English words that contain ‘lien’ including ‘julienne’. What is the ‘sovereign’ position on chopping vegetables?

            You can say that you stand under anything you like, but it won’t stop a court enforcing a debt, whether arising from a contract or statutory liability.

          • Mike

            Sorry about my grammar, one is only capable of speaking 3 languages, one was never sure of ones rammer what what.
            Whatever you say flup, is that the legal definition or just a Collins dictionary? You can keep paying a TV license that paid for a paedophile & for the company then try to cover it up, but I’m not. Keep paying your taxes while we spend £50 Billion a year on weapons & then blame the deficit on unemployed & disabled people.

          • flup

            It’s from the OED, to debunk your specious point that the ‘lien’ in ‘inalienable’ has any legal relevance. And I think we’re reached the nub of the argument. You have successfully swept away any pretence of principle and brought it back to the point I made in my original article: this all comes down to money. You don’t want to pay for your TV licence so you subscribe to outlandish and twisted legal theories, rather than being honest and just saying ‘I don’t want to pay, I think it’s wrong’. I would respect that position even if I didn’t agree with it, but hiding behind vague ideas of personal sovereignty is intellectually dishonest.

            If you want to raise arguments in support of your theory of law then I will respond to them, but a discussion of how tax revenues should be spent has no bearing on the matter at hand.

          • Mike

            Yes not a LAW Dictionary, you are aware of legalese arent you?

            If you wish to pay for Paedophiles wages by paying your TV license thats your choice, it isnt LAW!

            My morals wont allow me to do such a thing… which would mean nothing in a court of law? Ill take that challenge, since Ive learnt to defend myself I still havent had the chance to go to court.

          • flup

            > Yes not a LAW Dictionary, you are aware of legalese arent you?

            I am aware of the concept, but I fail to see how it relates to your example of ‘ina*lien*able’. If you know of a reputable law dictionary that backs up your theory, feel free to give a reference. If a law dictionary is silent on the matter then a court is likely to give words their ordinary meaning.

            > If you wish to pay for Paedophiles wages by paying your TV license thats your choice, it isnt LAW!

            Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 would disagree with you, and as they are both currently in force, so would a court.

            > My morals wont allow me to do such a thing… which would mean nothing in a court of law?

            Correct.

            > Ill take that challenge, since Ive learnt to defend myself I still havent had the chance to go to court.

            If you ever do get a court date, please come back and let us know when and where. I’d love to come and watch.

          • Mike

            @ Flup “There are no exemptions for religious groups other than turban-wearing Sikhs relating to the requirement to wear head protection on construction sites.” So their Belief (Morals) supersedes the Health & Safety statute/ Act/ legal requirement??? Wow.. PS I am completely unqualified in any aspect of law. Really you should have been able to dismiss my first post “Legal definition of a society is a group of people governed by MUTUAL CONSENT! ” which you didn’t reply to. If this is the standard I fancy my chances in court & Ill invite you ;)

          • flup

            I presume you’re quoting from here. The exemption for Sikhs is in fact in statute (s11 Employment Act 1989). If it wasn’t, their moral objections would have no bearing on the requirement in law. So unless you can quote an exemption for your TV licence (or convince your MP to propose one), your moral objections will be dismissed by a court.

          • Mike

            It wasnt a law it was an act… what gives an act the force of law? Jesus, I thought I was the layman.

          • flup

            Oh no, not this again.

            If you want to believe that an Act of Parliament doesn’t have the force of law then please go right ahead. I look forward to watching you explain your theory to a court.

        • Recsat

          It’s not often I feel the need to leave a comment on any blog, however in this case I did want to point out that before questioning someone’s intellegence it may be prudent to ensure your basic grammar is up to scratch. Fortunately I see Flup has already beaten me to it.

          Reading through some of the comments this post has received, I can’t help but imagine them to be written in crayon, or in ‘comic sans’ at least.

  17. alan

    well well well, here is an interesting factor , i got pulled up on dope in 2010 and back then when i never knew my rights i consentied to all charges against me and accepted 100 hours of unpaid work
    sure enough i gets on with it , 83 hours into my unpaid work i stumbled upon what i believe to be my GOD given rights and to believe that all men were created equal and subject to no one .

    so i stopped going to my community service , ( because why would i do UNPAID work ) probation sent me countless of 2nd chance warnings threating to take me to court after about ten letters they finally SUMMONSED me to court ( mag’s ) so i went along , men in tow around 6 of us
    when we got there the usher was blah blah blah and asked for the summonsed Mr Alan Johnston person to step forward , i steeped forward and said ”over here i’m the chief executive of that company” he said fine ticked it left
    half an hour later he came back and said chief executive this is a person not a company , i said oh isnt that funny how that ‘name’ can be a person or a company ‘ he just laughed and i said anyway hes the legal person of that name and i pulled out my birth certificate and said heres the summonsed person he just laughed , i said no im serious and when you give that to the magistrate tell him/her ill be asking for his oath of honour when i enter the courtroom in a second , anyways the name came over the tannoy to proceed to court one , just as i was about to enter thecourt the thuggish G4S security guards stepped in and said excuse me your friends arent allowed in this court only you sir.
    i said well its a public building and remains to do so untill the mag establishes some sort of jurisdiction , they wouldnt have it .
    so i said fine im leaving im not entering a court where i have no witness to the account of the hearing.
    the usher threatend me with a warrant saying if your not here we will issue a warrant in the absence i said fine do as you please im going home , so they issued a warrant in my absence when i was in the building .
    several weeks later i was in my front garden when too heavys pulled up and start waffling on i said excuse me can you step off the property , they said i have a warrant johnson ( bearing in mind i didnt lay claim to the name johnson i was the gardner for all they knew ) .
    so i told them excuse me im not johnson and this house is bought ( private property ) and i believe the householders name is johnsTon , right then i proceeded up the path and reached in the window and pulled out a sign , it had been there several weeks , but what it was , was an IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCES REMOVED meaning they had to abort the premisis or LAWFULL action would be taken against them they immediatly left and shut my gate haha .
    they proceeded to return 4 more times that summer in hope that someone anyone would lay claim to the name mr alan johnston and consented to let them on my property , they never ever did get on….
    however , when i went on my end of summer holidays , i touched back down in newcastle airport , there waiting for me was 2 officials who simply grabbed me and said ohhhh johnston , i believe you were acting as an agent of the government and took me away while i kicked and screamed shouting all sorts of freeman words haha.
    turns out i WAS acting as an agent of the government by been in possesion of official government document and property which i beleive was my passport , the name on my passport was a direct match as the name on the warrants previosly issued the previous summer .
    i was taken to mags where i got thrown in durham prison for non complying with a court order the one i previously consented to when i origannaly got done for dope anyways 9 days later i was back up too court where i had the chance to comply , with an additional 6 hours added to my unpaid hours also i sought legal help ie:solicitor so i basically weaved all my rights in order to be realised from prison .

    so from my personel experiance there is some truth in it and some nontruths in it , i found that all they were after was someone to lay claim to the legal name and a flesh human living soul to represent the punishments given , so if they give this legal name 5 yr prison they need a body to act out the prison sentance , dont lay claim to your name is the best wayaround it , christ i was walking around all over that summer with the warrant outstanding and i was untouchable they (the police ) even drove past me knowing who i was off previos convictions but couldnt take me in because they knew i wasnt admitting to whom i was .
    and the police know that there is some thruth in it thats why the try and use word like ”do you understand” to stand under in a secretand deceitfull way for you to comply with out you knowing you just did .

    thanks for reading excuse my spelling and grammar , ive just getting back intoo this english spelling after dropping out of school froma young age and now wanting to learn , years off drug abuse ruined me thats why drugs are tolerated in some parts of america to deceive the population and leaqving us incapable to think for our selves .

    yours truly alan

    • flup

      Hi Alan,

      Thanks for your comment. I only had a go at a previous commenter’s English because he insulted me. You’ve been very respectful and I hope I come across as affording you the same respect.

      I understand why you think that there is some substance to ‘sovereign’ arguments: you see evidence for them in the events you describe. However, this is the way I read it:

      * The usher was confused by your statements and didn’t understand what you meant.
      * The security guards may have prevented your friends from entering because they were supposed to be in the public gallery. If not then they were wrong, unless the hearing was closed for some reason.
      * Even then, a public building isn’t necessarily open to the public. A police station is public in that it is state property, but most of it is closed to the public without permission.
      * The warrant was issued because you did not appear in front of the Magistrates. The fact you were in the building is immaterial. You did not appear for your hearing, and thus were absent from it.
      * You confused the bailiffs by telling them that your name was different from that on the warrant.
      * I’m unclear as to what happened at the airport. It sounds like the warrant against you was enforced. At no time were you an ‘agent of the government’.
      * Your solicitor helped you get out of prison, but you still ended up being further punished for your failure to appear.
      * The police didn’t arrest you probably because they either didn’t recognise you, didn’t know that a warrant was outstanding, or simply had better things to do.
      * The police use words like ‘do you understand’ because they want to know if you understand. There is no special meaning to that phrase.
      * drugs do leave people incapable of thinking for themselves, but if this was the government’s aim, they wouldn’t be spending bazillions trying to stop their trade. They’d legalise them, tax them, sit back and watch the population get thoroughly stoned.

      …and finally…

      * the notion that a person is somehow legally separate from their name is nonsense. Nothing in your comment suggests that it is otherwise. You have interpreted events in favour of your theory, but I suggest that my interpretation is far more likely to be true.

      To summarise, things are often just as simple as they appear. You breached your community order, were summonsed, but failed to appear. A warrant was issued for your arrest. Court bailiffs attended but didn’t think they had the right man. You were eventually arrested at the airport, imprisoned, then sentenced for the breach of your community order. No ‘freeman’ explanations required.

      I’m thrilled for you that you’re getting your life together, and really hope that your beliefs in this nonsense don’t stop you doing wonderful things.

      Cheers
      – Ian

      • Bill in lalaland

        Good God Ian!
        I’m an independent sovereign under our creator in US. Evolution (still looking for lance link secret chimp among the Leaky’s) and all of things we take for granted is bunk. Icke’s pyramid is real and we should not believe in the common people being indoctrinated in school and increasingly being dumbly instructed while the rich elite go about mind controlling us and our children through an arsenal of such weapons as Disney to religion, allopatlhic medicine (poison, cut and burn) and big psycho/pharma. Freud the father of Psychiatry/Psychopathy and his nephew Edward Bernay’s, the father of advertising propaganda (think Tavistock Institue and mind control)
        Your just a youngster studying to be a solicitor, barrister, lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire or any other labels. Why is Black’s Law Dictionary not taught in elementary school?
        Where ARE our original birth CERTIFICATES? Where are the original credit APPLICATIONS
        Courts will not accept copies of certain documents. Show me me mum’s and da’s original signature on the original document or the system has no right to control me via their labels. Surely they have copies and computers (that work for the benefit of the people) and have no need for the original anymore.
        Study the history of banking (The Money Masters, Web of Debt, The Creature from Jekyll Island, War is a Racket, They Own it All, Including You, etc…) Just read ALL the Amazon reviews (both good and bad) unless your are a super speed reader, then read the books.
        Banksters have bought and legislated themselves into the total control of the world. If you want to see your future under the NWO police state, just go look at the giant nazi jack boot that will be pressing down on the world’s neck forever; or until hopefully some savior comes to save the souls stuck in the flesh.
        It is the Bank for International Settlements (top bankster pitbull) building in Basel, Switzerland.
        http://www.bis.org/images/photo_gallery/Tower1.jpg
        You strike me as way too knowledgeable, talented, articulate and aware (within the matrix) to waste your life as a barrister sucking up to magistrates, a musician (yes you do have to sell your soul to be successful) or a coder for a corporation for fiat money.
        Although it is 13 years old, read Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
        Why DID Google hire Kurzweil? I sold his speech recognition 23 years ago and it still does not work 100 percent as per closed captioning on TV. Also, read one of the last investigative reporters Jon Rappaport’s Nomorefakenews.com AND read through the crap on rense.com to find your truths.
        Keep the faith whatever it may be to you and consider becoming an entrepreneur and outdo Gates.and Google. Personal grudge: Had a metasearch engine 16 years ago and wash squashed by google.
        Each has his story to tell and Icke has many truths among many crappolas, eh?
        Anyway,
        Good LUCK!!!
        Bill, here is US, Still looking for my original birth certificate and assorted credit card applications with my original signatory and the original mortgages for many of my relatives.

        P.S. Why DO NOT we have a Tobin Tax?LOL
        What is your sales/vat tax rate?
        Perhaps 0.1% tax on FOUR QUADRILLION might even the playing field for us troglodytes, eh?LOL

        • flup

          Hi Bill,

          Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed comment, and not inviting me to suck anything or do unsavoury things to my mother. I’ll try to address everything you’ve said with the same courtesy.

          Firstly I should thank you for calling me a youngster: I turn the big four-oh in a couple of weeks, so that remark is particularly welcome :-) I’m studying law as a matter of personal interest; I don’t intend to make any kind of career out of it (my day and night job slots are both taken). FWIW I agree that the fundamentals of law should be taught in school as a matter of course, although I’m not sure why you focus on Black’s: it’s just a dictionary, and not an authority in the legal sense. Anyway, to business…

          At my core I’m a scientist and a sceptic. So you nearly lost me at

          Evolution [...] is bunk.

          Evolution is true. It is no more a matter of doubt or opinion than the length of my index fingers (6cm), or the mean distance from the Earth to the Sun (93 million miles), or the age of the universe (13.8 billion years). The evidence for all of these things is overwhelming. Likewise, your use of the word ‘allopathic’ suggests to me an adherence to homeopathy or other ‘alternative’ medicines. Homeopathy is utter nonsense. Conventional medicine is tested with randomised controlled trials, the only real way to know if something works and is safe. It’s not foolproof of course, but it’s by far the best we’ve got.

          Reading between the lines of your comment — and with respect — your reading list is, shall we say, selective. The problem with a world view at the fringes is that there is so little literature that will agree with you. If your world view includes a massive conspiracy (you mention pyramid, indoctrination etc) then you may believe that any source of information contrary to your world view is part of the conspiracy. Thus your world view controls and constrains you. You believe that your mind is open, but in fact it slams shut in the face of inconvenient evidence.

          I have no faith (and no entrepreneurial leanings either), no belief in the supernatural, and no qualms about dismissing something I thought I knew when presented with good evidence. To find incontrovertible evidence of even a small part of all this would be *incredibly* exciting. It would sweep the world and be revolutionary in every sense. Unfortunately that’s not going to happen because it’s all nonsense. To paraphrase Dawkins: there is a world of difference between that which is comforting and that which is true.

          I’d love to meet you in person some day; you’re intelligent and articulate, and I think we’d have a fascinating discussion. We’d never agree of course, but where would be the fun in that? :-)

          Cheers
          – Ian

          PS. Seeing as you asked, the VAT rate in the UK is 20% for most goods.

          • Bill in lalaland

            Cheers to you Ian also!
            Theory (hereafter referred to as a T) is that nothing is what it appears to be to our limited sensual perceptions. If the entire electromagnetic spectrum stretched 3000 miles from NY to LA our five senses perception is the width of an American dime. How’s that for the start of entering the T of monetary conspiracy, eh?LOL
            Please shut off the auto conspiracy tattoo machine for a moment and listen to JFK’s five and a half minute speech before the American Newpaper Publishers Association

            T would have it that he was referring to the communist conspiracy but he does mention secret societies, eh? My T is that all governments are just where Icke puts them on the pyramid and it is significantly below the banking system pinnacle. Did you not look at the BIS building in Basel?
            Champions of any and all forms of government are banksters’ sheeple. My T would be Albert Jay Nock “Our Enemy, the State”. The US was founded as a republic (individual rights are paramount) but has been perverted into a demonocracy where the demonic bankster forces control the government and let the sheeple think their right to vote is as important as their choices of the corrupt whom the banksters give them to vote for. Your grass roots political involvement probably has about the same amount of corruption as our lowest level political entity the school board. Everything is incorporated from the individual all the way up to the top. All governmental entities are corporations as are their sheeple.
            However everyone has an agenda that is intricately interwoven with money and money is corrupt by T; particularly fiat paper money. Our privately owned Federal Reserve Board corporation never allows enough money into the money supply to ever payoff the interest and the principal. It is this way by demonic usury design. Usury was a mortal sin and illegal under Roman Catholic Canon Law for 1500 years. But I die a tribe here.

            My T that you are a youngster is correct AS COMPARED TO MY BEING 65 this year. Although a skepticus maximus philosopher at heart, I worked as an accountant/auditor/controller in both NY State and Fortune 1000 company before becoming a technology entrepreneur. My poor younger son is a genius microbiology doctor who runs an NIH lab and is married to a marine microbiology doctor in charge of implementing STEM at a university, but they are both so academically mind controlled it is scary. They view me as paranoid, but everyone is so unbelievably mind controlled whether it be the newspapers, magazines, radio, Tellyee, computer or cellphone programs/programing. It really is pathetic, but almost anyone who sees it and tries to do something about it is ostracized, put away, suicided/killed.

            Current science is soooooooooo politically correct that many older T’s become engraved in stone.
            Darwin and his T is history and according to Henry Ford “History is Bunk.”
            http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html
            Einstein? My preference would be Plank who theorized God must be concluded from science. Just look at Fibonacci and Fractals.
            http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/max-planck-on-god/
            AND my preference would also be any plasma physicist promoting the T of The Electric Universe which leaves the other forces of gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear in the dust. The Electric Universe also attempts to disprove the other etched in stone T’S of Relativity, Black Holes and the comedy Big Bang.

            My T is sort of Hindu Tao in that God IS ALL THAT IS and we are a part of God. Every part that we see individually is conscious. Everything is the God consciousness.
            Like the star of David the six points of the two intersecting triangles represent for me
            the intersection of two or perhaps more dimensions (string T?). The one triangle’s three points that we perceive are 1) the heart, 2) the 30-90 trillion conscious cells, molecules and atoms of the body and 3) the electric computer brain. The other triangle’s corresponding three points are 1) the soul, 2) the spirit and 3) the mind.
            The demons want our souls but have chosen to go after our mind first, our spirit next and then our souls.
            The body is subjected to so many addictions and pollutants, the brain is so washed unbeknownst to us and now they are out to degrade our DNA as well as merge us with technology or as Kurzweil would call it “the singularity”.
            http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889/ref=la_B001ILHHDS_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1364998953&sr=1-2
            Wage slavery is just the modern form of the old slave trade. At least the old slaves were freely given health care, food and shelter. We have to work for money to get worthless material things that divert our attention from our true selves.

            None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

            God’s consciousness (infinite love) is the only truth, everything else is illusion (the demon strated matrix we perceive.

            Good luck!
            Bill

  18. Pingback: Direct Democracy Ireland claims to have 4,000 members and 11 offices - Page 44

  19. Mr Bean

    Hi Ian / Flup

    Having studied the freeman / Strawman argument for some time now i like yourself was dismissive of the theory. With a lot of research in to who i am a lot of self reflection. I suppose a lot of humans (note i did not use the Person word) reflect on the fairness of it all due to their certain circumstances at the time. I did for reasons (not monetary).

    Part of my wonder was what is society all about. This lead me to investigate the legal fiction i.e. the person which is your given name at birth in the UK registered or informed by your parents.

    There are in the UK two systems Legal Acts and Common Law.

    If you do not have a birth certificate (which is possible) does this mean Statue Legal acts do not apply to you hence the person name not being available.

    I do believe in society and would not wish to harm or cause loss to anyone, do not get me wrong but there are problems with the current system which i think is being now run for profit and is open to corruption.Money does rule in the legal arena the more you have the more chance you have of getting an outcome you wish.

    you are free at birth, money is fictional just like your name. what is real is the human beneath.

    I suppose they are just here to govern us, rights diminish as time goes on….. hence lawful rebellion.

    do you think there is democracy in the UK?

    what system would replace money? how else would the humans be controlled.

    what is right about working till you die and not being free. everything goes back in the box.

    i think it should be unlawful not to enjoy small time on this planet by not being free.

    Thats why i enjoy critical thinking. even if you don’t agree i respect your views.

    Good night.

    Mr Bean

    • flup

      You make lots of unsourced assertions in your comment which I’d like to address one by one (except the purely philosophical points). I stress ‘unsourced’ because you make some extraordinary suggestions, and without evidence they are merely part of a conspiracy theory. Unless you can point me to a judgment or ‘success story’ based on these arguments then I don’t see how they diverge from those made by the Flat Earth Society. Also note that I’m not philosophising in my article: I’m talking about how things actually are. My arguments are limited to that.

      …the legal fiction i.e. the person which is your given name at birth in the UK registered or informed by your parents.

      Like it or not, that’s you. As so much childhood schmaltz tells us, you are singularly unique. This ‘legal fiction’ argument has been done to death and is nonsense.

      There are in the UK two systems Legal Acts and Common Law.

      These are two sources of UK law. They are not the only ones, but they are the most important. There is only one legal system in the UK.

      If you do not have a birth certificate (which is possible) does this mean Statue Legal acts do not apply to you hence the person name not being available.

      No. A birth certificate is merely an administrative document. People born before 1837 didn’t have birth certificates and were subject to statute law. As you suggest it is perfectly possible for a modern birth to go unregistered, but this doesn’t magically absolve that person of legal liability. No-one has ever avoided a conviction for want of a birth certificate.

      …problems with the current system which i think is being now run for profit and is open to corruption.Money does rule in the legal arena the more you have the more chance you have of getting an outcome you wish.

      All absolutely (and sadly) true, and it was ever thus. Things are better now than they used to be (as I’m sure Dickens would agree), but it’s still true that more money gets you better representation which ultimately improves your chances of ‘getting off’. Sadly the coalition’s gutting of the Legal Aid system is a retrograde step. Having said all this, it has no bearing on ‘freeman’/’sovereign’ theory.

      do you think there is democracy in the UK?

      Yep. It’s not perfect but it’s inarguably democratic.

      I sense you’re dissatisfied with the way things are; if so then join the club! However, postulating absurd theories helps no-one, and may in fact be harmful to those seeking an easy way out of their problems. There are plenty of grassroots movements in this country that are trying in their small ways to make things better for everyone. With absolute respect, I suggest that you direct your energy in a more positive direction.

  20. Mr Bean

    Hi Ian

    Change comes out of aligning ones beliefs with another which is how society’s evolve.. Thank you for enabling this blog.

    Your correct in things how they actually are at present, my beliefs that there is nothing wrong with change for the good, and in my eyes nothing wrong with improving the society we live in at present for example making people more human to one another.

    Blame culture is a prime example of how not to act.The legal system is also open to abuse.

    I can understand your thinking that it is not helpful for what you call conspiracy theories, and lets face it many are so far fetched that they are on another planet.I would like to use the term open minded.

    Postulating absurd theories is not me either, the queen is exempt from UK Statues or Acts surely she is sovereign. And what makes me different as a human being than her majesty herself?

    Cheers

    Bean.

    • flup

      It’s refreshing to read a comment on here that is neither abusive nor nonsensical. Thank you for that :)

      Of course change for the good would be a wonderful thing, but a system where people are exempt (or can exempt themselves) from parts of the law horrifies me. You can’t trust everyone to do the right thing by others and by society at large. Sadly there are too many who are selfish, narrow-minded and far worse. I also agree about ‘blame culture’, but we should be careful not to go so far as to absolve those who are truly blameworthy. Some victims of accidents really do deserve their compensation, and those responsible deserve to pay it.

      The Queen is indeed exempt in that no proceedings can be brought against her. The difference is that she is the Queen. An accident of birth has placed her in a unique constitutional position. That it is unique makes me feel better about it: it’s anomalous, even absurd, but ultimately changes very little. Very difficult to use that as a basis to generate more ‘sovereigns’ who can go around doing pretty much anything they like.

      An interesting point about common law is that it is fundamentally undemocratic. Parliament has no influence over the courts in how they develop the common law: it shed the last vestiges with the creation of the Supreme Court. As the democratically elected body, Parliament can create legislation which sweeps away (or simply codifies) parts of the common law. That there is a democratic hand at the tiller makes me feel much better.

  21. troy

    Im a sovereign. And we are taking over but old fools like you will be gone when it happens.

  22. Haydn Donaldson

    Let me guess me, middle class, come from a relativity wealthy background. Private school and university paid for, never had much financial trouble…
    I’m sorry but you live in a delusion, if you think our system works for the greater good of every person and for the greater good of the planet then you couldn’t be more mistaken. Why would anyone want to part of a system which is self destructive by its nature? For example the motor industry… public transport should be diverse enough and funded enough (by the government) so that no one requires their own vehicle, as we all know pollution is destructive to the environment, but the government doesn’t care about that, their main concern is lining their own pockets. At the end of the day we shouldn’t be in a position that every person has to pay motor insurance, but we are… At least these men are taking a stand for what they believe in, to put them in same category as conspiracy theorists – when what they say is 100 % fact, just makes you look like an uneducated douche.

    • flup

      Another one for the ‘completely missed the point’ pile.

      My post isn’t about how things should be, but how things actually are. These men are taking a stand, but on the premise that their legal theory is actually correct today. My position is that it is not: you cannot step outside the law by proclaiming yourself a ‘sovereign’, ‘freeman’, or anything else. All they want to do is avoid their enforceable legal responsibilities.

      There are people who really take a stand against the system, risking everything, and they have my absolute respect. I doubt that I would ever be brave enough to do so. However, this misguided bunch merely want to enrich themselves by avoiding tax (or whatever); they don’t care if the system changes, they just want to find loopholes and feel special.

      I’ve deliberately avoided responding to your ad hominems. You’re clearly intelligent and have no need for them.

  23. mikolbz

    Just because something falls out of Your mouth doesn’t make it true!

  24. Jason

    Dear Ego, the truth is the truth, it does not require your belief
    Have a nice slavery

    • Bill

      free dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign
      sovereign: adj. self-governing, independent
      kings, queens, monarchs, nobles and all other elitist better than thou, self-appointed by hereditary claims are all subjects of the money power Rothschilds and Rockefellers and the others who are far wealthier than all the fortune 500 richest put together.

  25. Judge Lollington, attourney at lawl.

    The real bullshit happens when your parents bind you to an imaginary contract with the state for the rest of your life. A silly protection racket. It stands to reason that nobody should have the right to bind others into life long agreements without their absolute and fully informed consent. The rest is noise, philosophy and “Law”.

    The social contract is a con. And modern law protects worse criminals than it protects against.

  26. Judge Lollington, attourney at lawl.

    Law reminds me of tennis for some reason. It takes place in a court, its played by 2 guys with each their racket and the point is to get the ball over in the other guys court and have it stay there. And you have a judge sitting on his bench making calls on who is overstepping and such. Its not really rooted in deep philosophical ideas of justice but more on whom plays a better game.

    Since I did not sign this imaginary social contract. I have to assume that the state is not really addressing my person but rather a fiction of its own making. A paper citizen that only really exists in their system. Sure they can throw their hired goons after me and beat me up, but that is authority at gunpoint, which is at the core of every other run-of-the-mill type of suppressive governing. Even if the benefits here are slightly better than the general average for human slave farms atm. and you get to vote between a couple of predetermined asshats every fourth year. Slaves in Rome could own property and slaves themselves. Do not confuse creature comforts or the thin layer of “I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-democracy” we smear on everything with justice, fairness or anything of the sort.

  27. Judge Lollington, attourney at lawl.

    sry, if you can put my 3 posts into one. Please do so. My point is that there are no reason to mock those who fight this increasingly draconian system, even if their motivation to engage are less than absolutely noble. If a guy jumps into the water to save someone from drowning for no other reason than to get praised as a hero and get on the front pages, that does not change the fact that someone was saved from drowning. Wasting the systems time and resource with legal shenanigans is a valid method of pushing back, which may at least inspire someone to reconsider their life condition(ing). I think the freeman thing is rather frivolous too but I support it in spirit and it is morally justified. We really do not want this paranoid system to turn further into a centralized technocracy or have any more power or money to do evil things with and financially secure insane gamblers.

  28. Louis

    People do manipulate common law to avoid paying council tax etc, but it can also be used to protect yourself from bullying bailiffs and police who demand your identity for no apparent reason. I’m still looking in to this freeman stuff but it does seem like a useful tool incase we one day find ourselves living in a certain George Orwell book. I’m sure after reading that last sentence you’ll label me a conspiracist, but its just a precautionary measure (at the moment). Much like learning karate in case somebody attacks you. Thats what I think about all this, as for the Author..

    • flup

      Hi Louis, and thanks for your comment. Unfortunately all this freeman stuff would only be a ‘useful tool’ if it actually worked, which it never does. No-one has ever escaped council tax liability, or any other form of liability, with these methods. They’re utter nonsense.

      I’m not going to label you as anything — your comment was considered and interesting, if misguided ;-)

      • Stephen

        Well well still telling lies I see. Council tax etc is not common law it’s statute law/acts and they need your consent. No need for the freeman title you just need to know what to do when invited to their unlawful admiralty courts. Feel free to lie about this one and we will see if you have heard of Tort law as your misinformation on here is getting beyond a joke. I have made statements of truth a sworn affidavit and a statutory declaration stating the above are you??????

        • flup

          *sigh* here we go again. Something original would be nice, but no! it’s the same old lunacy.

          Statute law does not need your consent. I’m going to say that again, just in case you didn’t read it correctly: statute law does not need your consent. Don’t even get me started on your ‘admiralty courts’ crap. I have indeed heard of the law of tort, and funnily enough I have a big book on my desk called ‘Tort Law’. I’m struggling to see how it applies to council tax.

          I’m sure your statutory declaration, presumably in response to an application for a liability order, triggered some wry smiles. You take no risk in making the declaration, because you honestly believe its contents, however ridiculous they may be. And as for ‘getting beyond a joke': I take this very seriously indeed. These misguided and dangerous theories tempt those in dire straits, and the consequences can be devastating.