Freemen on the Land

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Freemen on the land a loose group is called, whose ideological common denominator is the assumption that the Statute Law equal functioned a contract. The supporters of this thesis believe that they could therefore get out of this contract and proclaim their private legal system, which is based on a natural law. The "Freemen on the land" first appeared in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s and were copied in Ireland, Great Britain and Canada. The FBI classifies the movement of the "extremist sovereign citizen " as a terrorist organization .

In the Canadian court case Meads v. Meads referred to the Chief Justice John D. Rooke the methods and arguments of the Freemen on the land as "organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments" ( "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" ) and judged them to be unfounded and abusive. The Freemen's arguments were not successful in any known case. Rooke notes that not a single legal opinion represented by the Freemen has been confirmed in a lawsuit.

ideology

Freemen believe that the Statute Law is a contract that could terminate the individuals to instead under the unwritten common law, as a "common law" designated natural right to live. According to this belief, natural law only requires that individuals not harm other people or their property, and that one should not commit fraud or breach contracts. The Freemen take the view that there is a dualism between the body and an associated legal person. The legal person is represented by the birth certificate and is therefore the subject of the Statute Law. In order to distance themselves from this, Freemen change their names by adding the addition "of the family" between their first and last names.

A large part of the Freemen bases their ideology on idiosyncratic interpretations of the law of the sea , which the Freemen consider to be decisive for the law of the economy. This belief is based on peculiar interpretations that the origin of concepts such as ownership ( ownership ), citizenship ( citizenship ) or birth certificate ( birth certificate - a pun on berth (dock)) suspects in maritime law. Freemen refer to the courts as ships and defendants as passengers.

Freemen try to enforce their natural law by asking their counterpart whether they have a claim against them. According to their belief, they thereby contradict the validity of state law and make their natural law the basis of a court that would consequently have to proceed according to this natural law.

Freemen do not accept legal representation because they believe that consent to such would signal their willingness to cooperate with the state. A frequent motif of Freemen's ideologies is the thesis that Great Britain and Canada would be insolvent, which is why the law of the sea is valid in these countries. Freemen are of the opinion that the British pound has been supported by British citizens or their legal entities since the gold standard was abolished. A key point of the Freemen belief system is the conspiracy theory that states are in reality corporations ("firms").

contracts

Freemen believe that because of their supposed natural right, in which equality is an omnipresent requirement, civil servants and other citizens would be equal in every respect. Courts, judicial staff and the executive branch would therefore have no more powers than any other citizen and would have to obtain the consent of a person in order to act on them. Civil servants who act as civil servants for an individual without his consent would violate a natural law. In the Freemen belief system, such consent would be given through submissions and registrations. The state would also have urged individuals to give up their Freemen status, which had existed in the Freemen's beliefs from birth, in return for which they were given the status of “child of the province” or “wards of the state” and thus the right to social benefits.

Freeman believe that the state must obtain authorization from a subject in order to contact him and what he calls the legal entity. If a person were asked whether he was "John Smith" and this answered the question in the affirmative, then such consent and thus the bridging of the dualism claimed by the Freeman was prepared; the approval would be completed by obtaining the consent of the subject. The right is seen only as an invitation to enter into a contract and is only valid if a subject has given its consent to it. Freemen are of the opinion that the state tries to motivate individuals by deceit to grant such a permit and therefore send back invoices, notices and summons with the message "No contract - back to the sender" . This interpretation of the law is often used by Freemen as a justification for the occupation of real estate, which is then passed on as a "message" and personal property of the occupier.

Freemen often try to document their independence through a "notice of understanding, intention and validity of the law" that they send to various offices and institutions such as police stations, holders of political offices or the Queen of Great Britain. Such notices are usually introduced with the words "As far as I understand it" and describe in the course of the text the opinion of the author about the legal system and his failure to give consent to it.

The British publication “Benchmark” notes that the Freemen's belief system is based on misunderstandings and wishful thinking that have not been recognized by any court.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. Sovereign Citizens A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement ( Memento of the original dated December 10, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 2011.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / leb.fbi.gov
  2. Federal Bureau of Investigation : Terrorism in the United States 1996 , p. 6
  3. B Witt Meier: Edmonton divorce case prompts justice to dissect "pseudo-legal" arguments . In: Edmonton Journal , September 27, 2012. Archived from the original on October 3, 2012 Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.edmontonjournal.com 
  4. ^ University of Calgary Faculty of Law
  5. Duhaime
  6. a b The Guardian
  7. ^ Canadian Lawyer magazine
  8. a b c d e f g "Nonsense or loophole?" , Benchmark , Issue 57, February 2012, p. 18
  9. ^ The threat of Freeman on Canadian land , CBC Radio, Sept. 25, 2013.
  10. Bizarre rental case brings Freeman-on-the-Land movement into spotlight , Global News , September 24, 2013.

Web links