An assortment of indigestible things

Sovereigns and freemen do their worst

An assIt’s been almost two years since I wrote my ranty debunk of the British ‘sovereign citizen’ / ‘freeman-on-the-land’ movement. I’m relieved to say that, in that time, the craziness has subsided a little: no more videos of ordinary citizens making twats of themselves in court; nothing in particular from ‘commonly known as Dom’ and his ilk; no exponential rise in peddlers of half-baked ‘legal’ advice; zero UK media coverage. The post itself now sees 5-10 visitors per day.

For your amusement and, well, further amusement, I present a selection of feedback I’ve received on my little diatribe. Some are extracts from published comments, while others are drawn from those that fell below my very low standards for approval (mainly where a fake or invalid email address was given). Although I can’t claim to receive hate mail that ranks high on the Dawkins scale of fuckwittery, I hope this little selection makes for a smile or two.

Please feel free to imply [sic] wherever needed.


We all love a good ad hominem attack, and it’s been hard to resist responding in kind when arguing with the intellectual equivalent of a tin of baked beans (oops, I tried). Let’s begin with the sublime

unless you have researched properly its best not to comment with the drivel of an uneducated man

Well that’s me told. Speaking from a clear position of authority, another informed me that

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

I’m a patient man, but just how much longer must we wait for this takeover? Perhaps I’d find out if only I would

do real research before sprouting a load of BS on this pathetic blog

That particular comment went on to sprout the vague and slightly menacing

I will give you a week

Oh well, at least it was more eloquent than the anonymous contributor who referred to me as an

impotent limp penissed little girly boy

and far more rebuttable than the monosyllabic response asserting that I am a


How did he know that was my favourite word?


Perhaps they really are out to get us after all. Thank goodness for my commenters who make sure everyone knows that

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

Or is the real truth that

bush blew up the towers israel told him to do it

‘An independent sovereign under our creator in US’ nearly saves us from studying Biology:

Evolution (still looking for lance link secret chimp among the Leaky’s) and all of things we take for granted is bunk.

but spoils it by revealing that he is a follower of The Mad Purple One:

Icke’s pyramid is real

The most comprehensive conspiracy theorist began by telling me that I am a

stupid little shit. Who gives a fuck about laws they are all fiction. All the world leaders control a device in the earths core that can destroy the planet at the press of button. And you talk about fucking LAW!

Nice world leaders. Step away from the button. We promise to behave.


I had assumed that native speakers of English would write comments that were, given a bit of effort, capable of interpretation. Boy, did I misunderestimate that don’t stalemate brick cloudy hello.

I spent a couple of hours reading and re-reading a thousand-word, one-sentence comment, the flavour of which was

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…

Another comment left me in no doubt that its writer did not intend to create legal relations:


but unfortunately he failed to write anything else. Tony, you can relax: for the avoidance of doubt, no contract exists between us.

Finally, this mind-bender is an insight into the minds of those who would follow the ‘sovereign way’:

To write my rights down would be a contradiction of having inalienable rights although I would consider writing an affidavit.

I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the time to comment, or to write to me directly. Public comments on the Internet do have a certain reputation, and—with a few welcome exceptions—this little selection has definitely reinforced the stereotype!


This really happened to someone!


Is it possible to do a law degree in your spare time?


  1. Alistair

    I can understand why you think there is a lot of quackery around this topic. Unfortunately for me, I did follow their research quite diligently and they do have a valid point on Contract.
    As everything, in contract, extends from and works within the Uniform Commercial Code it might be worth your while to look at what is now being enabled through the Trans Pacific Partnership and the coming Trans Atlantic Partnership.
    If you disagree with these ‘partnerships’, and I think you ought, what tools of legalese are available for you to use apart from using the UCC that it was written under, to voice your dissent?

    HM Government, Police Scotland are registered as a trading bodies at Dun and Bradstreet, as are all the Regional Councils.. if it is done correctly and in the right order there is sound reasoning on using this method of dissent. This is not tax avoidance.. its about using taxes as they were properly intended to do: the health and welfare of the community.

    • flup

      I genuinely don’t understand. You’re posting from the UK, and asserting that contract law derives from the UCC. This despite the fact that (a) the UCC is a piece of domestic US legislation, and (b) it only came into force in 1952. It has no bearing on UK contract law, and if you tried to raise it in court you’d be greeted with puzzled looks, shortly followed by a judgment against you.

      I can see there may be valid reasons to object to the proposed TFTA. However, using what you call ‘legalese’ (a use of the word peculiar to legal conspiracy theorists; it just means language that’s obscure to the layperson because of the technical legal terms used) will get you precisely nowhere. If you object, write to your democratic representatives, start a campaign, march through the streets, raise awareness. If it becomes law, you have no legal recourse just because you don’t like it.

      On to your Dun & Bradstreet point. Of course the government, police and councils are trading bodies! How else would they buy things? If I sell widgets to the police, I have a contract of sale with them just as with any client. However, this doesn’t change the nature of the police or the government, and certainly doesn’t mean that they are ‘corporations’ in the sense usually understood.

      Finally: there is, as I’ve said many times before, no sense at all in this form of dissent. It is purely selfish and legally baseless. Not a single person has succeeded in the courts with ‘sovereign’/’freeman’ techniques, and none ever will. I’m all for redistribution of wealth and fair taxation, but clogging up the courts with nonsense will change nothing.

      • Alistair

        The UCC applies Internationally and is overseen by the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland.. sorry to burst your bubble on this..
        As for legalese its a pretty common term in the UK and not restricted to the american conspiracy theory crowd.. but I use vernacular when necessary and I am very aware of the difference. As one of the judges stated in court ‘Alistair, your paperwork is impeccable but you court etiquette is something to be desired’ a quick apology and on we moved.

        The Police Scotland aspect becoming a trading body has NEVER happened before within the UK. It became a private corporation this year where it began trading its services not widgets… might be common for you in the US, but over here its shocking.

        and yes it has already been applied in NZ and the case settled out of court… amount undisclosed. The win was not based on selfish gain, but in what the sovereign ‘nations’ and individuals within NZ could do for their communities… Again, your stuck within the American paradigm and its fixation on self.

        • flup

          I can find no evidence to support your assertion that the UCC is overseen by the BIS, nor that it applies internationally. The only mention I can find in any BIS document is a general description of how the UCC applies in the United States (Red Book from pp477-8). If you want to convince me, then find me some evidence from the BIS.

          ‘Legalese’ is a common term but the words don’t have any magical power. It’s quite common to see litigants-in-person in court present their case in everyday language and go on to win it; judges make allowances in these cases (as I’m sure the judge did in yours).

          It’d be nice to have some evidence of Police Scotland’s ‘private corporation’ status.

          ‘Settled out of court… amount undisclosed’ is effectively anecdotal and meaningless.

  2. Neil

    Just be passed your blog.
    I live in Blockley and am very interested in the freedom issue.
    I do not agree that this form of dissent is purely selfish and legally baseless.
    Selfishness is what everybody does every day – what is good for them and theirs. What’s wrong with challenging the authorities and how they collect and spend tax.
    Legally baseless is rather grand term, considering we have hundreds of documents, laws, including a constitution in several documents.
    I fell you are thinking rather superficially.
    What is tax?
    What is government?
    Why are they both essentially supported by violence? Or maybe violence is correct?
    Are we tax slaves?
    Why can’t we opt out?

    • flup

      You make a few different points, so I’ll try to respond to a couple of them. Only the first touches on what my original post was actually about; that is, people who claim that they can escape various types of liability by using bizarre pseudo-legal arguments. Many commenters have tried to engage me in discussion about how the system should change, but this is stepping outside the scope of the point I was trying to make.

      * When I say ‘legally baseless’, I mean that no court in the land will uphold these arguments. People can bang on about common law and Magna Carta all they like, but if they can’t get the courts to agree, they are wrong by definition.

      * Our legal system does indeed consist of many sources, written and unwritten, but this doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. Citizens can’t declare themselves exempt from the law for the same reason that pigs can’t declare themselves exempt from gravity: laws (of the land, and of physics) prohibit both.

      * It’s important that people do challenge the government, whether through the democratic process, protest, or (if they feel strongly enough) civil disobedience. By all means refuse to comply with the law and accept the consequences. Just don’t expect any sympathy if you start bawling at Magistrates about oaths and common-law jurisdiction in an attempt to evade your legal obligations.

      I could almost wave at Blockley from here. We probably have friends in common.

  3. Neil

    I believe you are right about legally baseless, then again I believe a freeman understands that most courts are actually mercantile in nature and are dealing with your strawman, and thus to attend such a court would be useless. The freeman’s point of view is that there is a basic difference between legal and lawful.
    This is the real motivation behind the whole thing – to stand for what is right, and denounce wrong.
    As to laws and pigs flying, there be a slight difference between man-made, and God / Universe made, and this really is in essence the real crux of the movement – that man-made laws (Statutes) are not binding, whereas God-made (Common Law) are.
    Bawling at Magistrates is I agree silly.
    I believe we must ask ourselves, with historical perspective and imaginative intelligence:
    What is tax?
    What is government?
    Why are they both essentially supported by violence? Or maybe violence is correct?
    Are we tax slaves?
    Why can’t we opt out?
    All the best, Neil

  4. Neil

    Check out these 2 interesting documents – you may already have done so:

    • flup

      That ‘your strawman’ website is precisely the kind of crap I’m trying to debunk here; thank you for the link. The statement ‘Paying tax is OPTIONAL’ should tell you everything you need to know about the clowns who peddle and attempt to implement this nonsense. Not one of them has managed to avoid a single penny in tax through these ridiculous beliefs.

  5. Neil

    Hi again.
    You seem not to be interested in considering the real point of the freeman movement which I clearly state in the previous comment. I don’t know why. It seems that for you success in a court is the most important thing. It seems to me the nature of the courts is more important, especially when you find that they are basically corrupt: operating in commercial law with only an eye to enforce statutes over every aspect of your life and continually take money from you.
    Are you one of those who would plead at the Nuremberg Trials that you were only doing your job, that what you did was legal in Nazi Germany, and therefore you were not guilty?
    God spare us from such a legalistic mentality – I truly hope that most people are bigger than that, though unfortunately I am not very sure of this.
    Besides, your categorical statement that none has ever managed to avoid a single penny of taxes, seems also factually clearly incorrect from the varied and unconnected evidence I have seen.

    • flup

      You are correct: as I have stated repeatedly, my original post deliberately ignored the ‘how things should be’ arguments, and focused on how ‘freeman’ theories are false in fact. You repeat one of its arguments here, that courts operate under commercial law. It’s just nonsense. A philosophical argument about how democratic states should operate would be interesting, but far away from the point I was trying to make. Of course I do have my own opinions about the current system’s flaws and faults, but they are neither here nor there when discussing the facts of the real world.

      I’m willing to bet that the ‘varied and unconnected evidence’ doesn’t include a single transcript or appellate court decision. If, somehow, a ‘freeman’ managed to convince a lower court that he was in fact exempt from certain aspects of the law, do you not think that the government would appeal the decision? Of course it would, and it would win in short order. If by some miracle the ‘freeman’ prevailed, the judgment would be publicly available and the floodgates would swing open. But of course this will never happen, because the disparate nonsense that makes up ‘freeman’ theory is just that.

      Your Nazi Germany remark is beneath us both (and a great example of Godwin’s law).

      • Neil

        If your idea is solely to say that the Freeman concept does and has never worked, then I cannot personally give you evidence that it does. I am checking out how this works. However, I can say I have heard and read quite a bit, and it does work for those people.
        I myself have not been through the courts and tried it out (yet), though I am presently in a case with the Powers That Be, so will be able to find out more, and hopefully in time will have evidence.
        Sweeping generalisations are rather empty in any case, and “I bet”, “would”, “will never” are hardly rational arguments.
        You obviously think there is no room for anything in reality except what you are given directly, which shows a total lack of imaginative intelligence, that is to say that there are an infinity of alternatives to anything, most of which have exited or do exist, or can exist.
        There seems to me to be only one jurisdiction that makes any sense, the Common Law, which you seem to call “nonsense” as it is the basis of the freeman movement.
        I understand you are keeping your own desires for the world to yourself, and you are simply deriding the freeman movement as rubbish. This simply does not bear scrutiny, as the Common Law is British Law.

        As to the Nazis, it stands as long as any person embraces the legalistic, statutory law system, where what is not legislated is not allowed – frightening. I did not necessarily mean you, as I don’t know you.

        • flup

          I look forward to reading any first-hand evidence that you can present. In the meantime I think it’s fair to say that we are at an impasse.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén