A guilty pleasure of mine: heaping well-deserved scorn and ridicule on the con men peddling "freeman-on-the-land" nonsense:
Quote:
Freeman on the land
Freeman on the land or freeman is a form of pseudolegal woo in various English-speaking countries. Freemen believe they can opt out of being governed, and that what normal people understand to be "laws" only represent a form of "contract" which only apply if people consent to them. In consequence Freemen believe they are only bound by their own bizarre version of common law, and they will often assert that the law doesn't apply to them as they have not consented to a contract with the state, even going so far as to claim they have a lawful right to refuse arrest if they do not consent. Essentially, they're hilarious and somewhat less threatening sovereign citizens.
Freemen believe they can declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction using the concept of "lawful rebellion": that all statute law is contractual and therefore only applicable if an individual consents to it. They believe the only "true" law is their own definition of common law. Other aspects include insisting that the government is a corporation, an obsession with maritime law, and calling themselves such things as "John of the family Smith."
No freeman arguments have ever been recognised in court; some have even explicitly ruled that the term "freeman on the land" has no legal significance.[1] This won't stop freemen from claiming they work.
|
A basic introduction to the nonsense: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|