exposing freeman nonsense

Mixed-up malarky

Freemanism is well mixed-up.

I suggest that Freeman-types have quick read up on Leo Strauss. It will leave your head spinning and you will know the meaning of cognitive dissonance. It will hurt.

Andrew Le Sueur: Crazy constitutionalism

A useful if limited position on the UK and lack of a legal basis for Freemanism. Some comments are worth reading too…

UK Constitutional Law Association

I’m reading David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History (2009). It’s excellent, but although it makes passing reference to conspiracy theories about the European Union it says nothing about one that deals with the foundations of the British constitutional system.

Sunstein and Vermeule have defined a conspiracy theory as ‘an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)’: see (2009) 17(2) The Journal of Political Philosophy202, 205. Of course, some conspiracy theories – defined in this way – are both justified and true. What concerns me are those that are unjustified and false. In a bewildering, uncertain and unfair world, where participation in and respect for organised politics is declining and public understanding of the constitution and law is poor…

View original post 1,071 more words

Judge & Rooke – checkmate

The most indepth and probably exhaustive study of Freemanism is a judicial response from Justice Rooke of Canadian case Meads vs Meads. it covers evrry ‘strategy’ used by the freeman-types in Candaian Courts and then across the US and other juristictions. At over 190 pages it is a lengthy read, but worthwhile if you want to understand the so-called Organised Pseudolegal COmmercial Argument of freeman-types:

[623]      My observation that Mr. Meads has not brought any novel concepts to the court indicates the legal and intellectual bankruptcy of the OPCA movement. At this point they have exhausted their schemes and now simply employ variations on prior strategies that have been rejected following careful and exhaustive judicial review. [my emphasis]

There is nothing in freemanism, only a fantasy for narcissts who beleieve themselves to be above the law or desperate people seeking desperate remedies when their legal cause is all but lost. Checkmate.

Admirality Law

Critical to the approach taken by Freeman and their ilk is the assertion that the courts operate under Admirality Law, which is the ‘Law of the Sea’ and thus a distinct juristiction from the ‘Law of the Land.’ As the freemen are on dry land, the Admirality Law cannot possibley adhere.

There are many freeman sources that describe Admirality Law. While most UK freeman-types consistent assert that ‘the law of sea’ is a law of contract. I haven’t yet found a complete explanation the origins of claim. There is most certainly a division of the law courts known as the Admirality Court that deals specifically with commercial disputes of a maritime nature – there are also specialist divisions such as the Technology & Construction Court, the Commercial Court and so on, freeman never make reference to these. It is not clear how the Admirality Court has come to be the ‘supreme’ court.

US Americn ‘Soverign Individuals’ have suggested the Admirality Court in the Federal Court system usurped legal powers because the US of A is under martial law. Assertions that the US is fascist dictatorship under martial law tie the soverign types to conspiracy theorists – that basically there is analternative reality to be uncovered, and that – from their research – they are constructing the jigsaw of reality, with the ‘end game’ of ultimate revalation. Although its not critical that Freeman-types hold a belif in ‘New World Order’ type conspircies it is prevalent in all forms, and this includes the UK version. Often this is tied to ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ type conspracy that a cabal of Jewish bankers, including the Rothchild family, run the planet for the own benefit.

In Canada, Freeman-types claim that the symbols of the court demonstrate it’s martime nature citing Portraits of Queen Elizbeth II – ‘Rule Britania, Britain Rules the Waves’ etc – and an inscription on the coat of arms which translated from Latin reads ‘From Coast to Coast’ and should that not be an obious reference, let me be clear that the ‘Sea’ is to be found at the coast and thus ‘proof’ that the court is of a maritime nature. It should come as no surprise that ‘literalism’ is part of the machinery of Freemanism and they regularly engage in ‘wordplay’ to prove the point – for example ‘citizenship’ demonstrates that citizens are on the ship of state, which completes the taughtology proving that Admirality Law is supreme.

Freeman-types will often claim that there are exempt from the ‘Social contract’ because they have not signed it, and any attempt to claim that a Birth Certificate or Passport are evidence of citizenry as met with more word play that proves Admirality law is in place. There is an oft repeated claim that ‘Berth’ should be spelled with an ‘E’ because ships berth in docks etc. And the ‘port’ in passport is as obviously proof that the maritime nature of legal constructs. Similarly those present are required to  ‘bow’ before the court – or ‘bend’ like a ship’s bow – and of course if you are on trial you must take your place in the ‘dock’

It is possible to find the joint etomolgy in these words, but their bifurcation happens long before the current meaning. Both the suffix ‘ship’  and the word ‘ship’ for ocean-going vessel originte in the langueges with a root ‘scipe’ which is properly undertood as ‘shape.’ The fork of these two words happened millenia ago, when vessels were shaped out of trees and followiing this etomology friendship is class of relation of the freind-shape or friend-type. Similarly, both ‘Birth’ and ‘Berth’, having the same sanskrit root to ‘carry’, divereged long before Admirality Law or even the Magna Carta were codified.

Ultimately, what you relise from pursuing these individual strands of Freemanism, is that they are digressions from reality… it is  deus ex machina – an attempt of the freeman adherts to to play god and build a legal philosophy from the peices that suits the expectation. Wardped, you might say? Of course, it is only ship’s bows that are warped!

Aye, aye captain!

We the Majority – a DEMAND


The majority of UK Citizens continue to participate in UK representative democracy. This reinforces the legitimacy of the state to act in certain ways, for example setting and collection taxes or constituting compulsory requirements to driving on the road network – please see all Acts of Parliament. Anyone who engages with the provisions collectively sanctioned by the majority of dwellers on the island and islands of Great Britain.


If any Freeman, known by any name or none with any legal disposition lawful or other wise, known by name or bodily person is to engage in anyway with any provision made through, by or on the ship of state then this notice hereforth, henceforth, whenceforth and goforth demands that all abide the decisions taken in the House of Commons by representatives of the majority of people of this and these islands, the flotilla de defacto.

This DEmAND is without Mischiefs, Vexations or hitherto unknown mis-deeds of entrapment and so on and so forth.

This DeManD is made in public, pinned to the internet, and sufficiently notarised, that you are duly obliged to comply with these terms and henceforth all changes to the terms of Acts of Parliament. Remedy shall be incarceration and/or financial penalty as set by a Court of Law.

By going on the said internet, you agree to all terms.