A few weeks ago, Surrey police were faced with the task of forcibly removing a man from his vehicle on the A3, when he resolutely refused to cooperate and locked himself inside. He had been pulled over because the car he was driving was uninsured, and he bitterly resented the intervention of the traffic officers. Of course, regrettably there is nothing unusual about an aggrieved motorist becoming obstreperous when challenged about illegal behaviour, but what made this incident somewhat different from most altercations of this type, was his stated motivation. The arrested individual claimed that he was a “freeman of the land”, and consequently regarded himself as having no legal or moral obligation to comply with the demands of the police or to pay for insurance.
Freeman of, or sometimes Freeman on the Land, are not a structured organisation, but a label adopted by a group of people who subscribe to a complicated philosophy, which they believe enables them to ‘opt out’, or perhaps more correctly, avoid opting in, to statute law and common law as it is understood and interpreted by the courts. In their view, such legal rules are not binding on individuals unless they agree to them, and they are adamant not to behave in any way which might be interpreted as accepting. Consequently, they also feel themselves justified in declining to spend their money on things like third party motor insurance, or taxation, regardless of what legislation might say about it.
Freemen of the Law are a reality found throughout the English speaking world, and have caused high profile problems in Canada and the United States. Given the seriousness with which many Freemen (we are not aware of any of them using the term “Freeperson/people”) take their beliefs, demonstrating a willingness to go to prison or lose their home in preference for cooperating with authorities, and how fundamentally this affects their life, it is very likely that they would met the threshold for protection under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the provision which safeguards not simply the right to hold a belief, but the freedom to manifest it as well, and their situation provides a good paradigm example of why the right to express beliefs in practical ways cannot be absolute. In fact, Article 9 allows for the right to be limited for reasons which are:
“necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
People are entitled to believe that the authority of Parliament is a part of an oppressive conspiracy if they wish so. Nevertheless, as soon as they start acting on that belief, the impact on wider society has to be weighed in the balance, and allowing individuals to choose whether or not they want to participate in the Rule of Law is not really a viable option in a safe, democratic and well-ordered community. Many Freemen subscribe to the notion that they are free to act however they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else, but who gets to determine what constitutes harm or potential harm? The consensus in this country, as enshrined in law, is that driving without insurance is indeed a damaging activity. Citizens have to pay to fund the Motor Insurers Bureau, so that the victims of uninsured drivers are not left without compensation, meaning that there is a collective cost even if no accident ever occurs. In practical terms, Freemen are sharing roads and physical space with other people, and thereby putting third parties at potential risk. Nobody can plausibly claim in getting behind the wheel that there is zero chance of a crash occurring through driver-error, and therefore, individuals can hardly expect to put others in jeopardy and then abnegate all responsibility should anything bad happen.
Sometimes, there are very good reasons why the expression of minority beliefs have to give way to majority needs and interests, and the rights of other citizens cannot simply be thrown under a bus (or the wheels of an uninsured Freeman) just because they happen to be in the majority. Despite this crucial acknowledgment, it is also crucial to stress that forcing conformity on a minority, and curtailing liberty of freedom or belief should never be done lightly, or with more adverse impact than is strictly necessary. This is clearly why Article 9 has inbuilt safe-guards, minorities cannot have their freedom limited more than is necessary, and any restriction must be proportionate to the need. However, there must always be a balance, and sometimes, as it happens in this particular scenario, that balance will quite properly tip in favour of the majority.
Related Articles
Man calling himself a “freeman of the land” arrested on A3 for obstructing police (Haslemere Herald 8/9/18)
Man calling himself a Freeman on the land denies his own identity to a judge (Somerset Live 4/12/17)
Here’s how Freemen of the Land keep trying to tie up Alberta courts with their spurious beliefs (Edmonton Journal 21/9/16)
R Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Williamson [2005] UKHL 15
I consider myself to be a ‘Freeman’. I still continue to pay my taxes and try not to break any laws out of a sense of civil duty. I disregard any conspiracies through intelligent research.
What I don’t agree with is the use of Maritime Laws used against the Common Man. Common Law states that no group, organisation or corporation has the right to impose taxes against any individual. I do not live or work at sea so why should I be obligated by fictional laws created by the state to force me to comply?
I now refuse to register to vote because there are no leaders in this world who are acting in the interests of the people. I have no faith or confidence in politicians who have succumbed to greed and vanity. I am sure that many people feel the same way these days. I predicted at the start of the year that we would not leave the EU in March and I was right. I now tell you that we will not be leaving in October. I know this because I have spent my whole life studying, looking for answers and now totally understand the human race and its leaders agendas. We need some leaders who have the courage to address the real issues facing humanity, the greatest threat being population.
I have been unlawfully arrested (then released without charge) under maritime laws just because of hearsay and for reasons of mental health issues, but this still remains on my record causing me to be able to apply for certain jobs. Just because someone suffers depression it does not mean they are stupid and should definitely not be thrown into a cell.
Common law also states that all are equal, but the society we are forced to live in disproves this basic fact. Give people a title or uniform and it goes to their heads. They then start to enforce their beliefs upon others.
For these reasons I now only stand under Common Law, even if the state now labels me as a “Enemy Combatant”. I fear no one.
The human race has used fear to control the people since the beginning of civilisations, first with religions and now unlawful statutes. It is the 1st world states who create terrorist’s by invading their lands, extracting their wealth and trying to enforce their own beliefs and taxes (Northern Ireland is a good example of this). Now the US has it sights set on Iran and China because their own economy is about to collapse.
People are starting to wake up and realise that control is all in the mind. Witchcraft works on the same principles, if you believe it to be true the sub-conscious mind will make it so. It is just a shame that this awakening is coming too late with world population growing by a billion every twelve years. The planet can not sustain these numbers and this civilisation will go the same way as all those which came before it.
This is why I do not understand (stand under) these false laws that oppress the people. Try watching the film ‘The Great British Mortgage Swindle’ which was released nationally, but only a few cinema’s would show. You will see exactly how this corrupt system works. Find out why “Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted” is unlawful in many cases plus lots of others rules we believe to be true are actually not.
I wish peace upon you all and the best of luck in the future.
Sui Jurvis.
I could converse with you all day!
Hi David,
In your comment you’ve said the following “Common Law states that no group, organisation or corporation has the right to impose taxes against any individual.”
Common law is another name for legal precedent or case law. Can you cite the specific case in which such a principle came about? Who wrote the judgement, were there any dissenters and has it been overturned through stature or through the rulings of higher courts?
All the best
Jim
no it isn’t jim common law is not the same as case law, the courts have named it this but it it not correct common law is the same a natural law, the laws of every living person and their rights
Very well said David
Conveniently, these self-styled freemen don’t seem to have any problem claiming State Benefits or compensation through a court system that they refuse to otherwise recognise. If they won’t recognise their communal responsibilities, why should we recognise their ‘rights’ to benefit from an ‘illegal’ system of laws?
Do you not watch the tv, police are arresting people that are not braking the law, yes they may be ideots in these uncertain covid times and going out to crowded places but at the time i am righting this it is only a guide line not a criminal offence so how dare the police use more power than they are entitled too. I do not want to be told by such authorities that i must do this or must do that, i have car insurance, i pay my tax’s etc etc but its only through my choice to be a good citizen
Thanks for your comment. Questions around the use of police powers during the Covid-19 crisis are legitimate and important, but an entirely different debate from the this one. Freemen on the Land generally object to the State/legal system as a whole, not just specific aspects.
Does anyone know whether freemean on the land have actually worked to establish “colonies” or other territorial regions within the UK where they can use their numbers to hold illegimiate authoirities at bay and live the way they wish? I think the real trouble has been that the freeman movement has been disconnected and without a geographic heart.
Common law is nit illegal