I've been following this sovereign nonsense for some time, and in the last week or two there has been a bit of coverage about 'freemen' in the British press which I thought might interest people here. Please forgive me if it doesn't
The Guardian (a left-leaning quality newspaper) published http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... upy-london written by someone involved with the current 'Occupy London' protest. He starts out sounding reasonable and measured, but unfortunately descends into this sort of thing:
(cue collective sigh)The prison without bars is made by bits of paper.
Bits of paper like your birth certificate. All registered names are Crown copyright. The legal definition of registration is transfer of title ownership, so anything that's registered is handed over to the governing body; the thing itself is no longer yours. When you register a car, you're agreeing to it not being yours – they send you back a form saying you're the "registered keeper". It's a con. That's why I say I've never had a name.
We are all taught to be a name, the name on our birth certificate. But if you don't consent to be that "person", you step outside the system. According to the law books, a "natural person" (or human being) is distinct from the "person" as a legal entity. All the statutes and acts are acting up on the "person", and if you're admitting to being a person, you are admitting to be a corporation that can be acted upon for commerce.
The blogger 'Head of Legal' (http://www.headoflegal.com/) wrote a good rebuttal the following day: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... py-freemen. My favourite quote from that article:
Quite a few bloggers picked up on this, and https://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/ ... is-sacred/ is particularly good (scroll down for a hilarious TV programme on which someone wearing a '9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB' t-shirt makes me so so proud to be a member of the human raceThe love freemen show for magic texts, incantations and ritual is not just funny: it shows a strange, childlike respect for the trappings of justice, and a commitment to jargon not even the stuffiest solicitor can match.
Finally I humbly submit my little rant about all this that I wrote a few weeks ago; it's not remotely erudite but I was very pissed off when I wrote it, if that counts for anything! http://rainbow.chard.org/2011/11/10/sov ... -nonsense/
Cheers
- Ian