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!