In Defence Of Freemen

Yon "Cat Leaves Bag" post continues to cause ripples.

Two of those ripples appeared last night. One by Mark Wadsworth who I like and respect despite never having met him, and the other by The Fat Bigot who I link to, but don't know much about. Mark says that he (TFB) is a barrister, but whether that is material is for you to decide. I cast no aspersions, unlike TFB who opines that I am "occasionally deranged". Perhaps he is a psychiatrist as well.

The whole court case ended up centring on the existence of a legal fiction. If Roger says his account is accurate, (I have spoken to him in the past, but not about his court case), I believe him. Roger knows how important this is to many thousands of people and he would not deliberately mislead. I say that with conviction.

Of course, that is part of the problem: those who lambaste him, don't know him, so it is easy to have a pop at someone you have never met, particularly on the internet.

Like many others, I contend that we have a legal fiction or artificial construct or a corporation or, if you prefer, a trade name. I have also come to believe that it is vital to have one. It is illogical, and impossible, to engage in commerce without one. Commerce is based on contracts. Contracts need certain elements to make them enforceable in law. One of these is "Full disclosure". That makes sense because if both parties are unaware of the finer details, the contract is unfair and unenforceable. Are we all in agreement on that?

Now, TFB states, among other things, that:

"...for example, I'll bet you a pig to a pork scratching that the human being has acknowledged himself to be Mr Roger Hayes hundreds if not thousands of times and has benefited from doing so..."

No-one is disputing that.

However, would Roger, or any one of us, have acknowledged that if we knew that we had a fiction? Show me one single businessman that did NOT use his corporation to his own advantage, if you can. The businessman did this because he was in control. He knew the corporation existed and engineered his success around that fact. We have these fictions, these corporations, and we are unaware of the fact. We have no idea how to use them to our advantage, and suddenly, a judge has at the very least, admitted that this fiction exists. Remember this maxim, tattoo it on your arm if needs be: "He who does not disagree, agrees". By stating that the council was permitted to have third-party representation, the judge has allowed that Roger must be afforded the same right. Logically, it cannot be otherwise. Will it all come back to court for a solid ruling? I doubt it very much indeed.

What it all boils down to is this: your trade name/legal fiction is entitled to benefits. You, the man, have inalienable rights. Because the full disclosure rule has been set aside, we tend to trade rights for benefits. This is never wise. Unless, I suppose, you are fully dependent on the state, in which case, jam today may well be your philosophy. Millions of people depend on the state. Whose fault that is, is a separate debate, but I have decided that the state is guilty of avarice, stupidity, and duplicity. It is for those reasons alone that I fight my fight. Using their very own rules it is possible to step aside, and say, "You've had all you're getting from me. From here on in, I want to keep as much of my sweat equity as I can".

Many of the comments at Mark's place are based on ignorance. I say this with no malice. I was ignorant once too, or rather, I was less ignorant than I am today. TFB's piece seems to delight in telling us that we (and I doubt he just means Freemen) are classed as "nutters" by the judges and their familiars. There is nothing surprising in this. We are not the same species. The legal world lives in, by, and for itself. It has long been the case. They are secretive, and they hold themselves to be somehow mightier than we mere mortals. They have practised their art for thousands of years, is it surprising to anyone, that they would rubbish our research or our tactics in court? I know that judges are oath-sworn. Is it ridiculous to ask a judge if he or she is acting on their oath during your courtroom appearance? TFB seems to think so. And he must know best because he is a barrister. What I have learnt is that councils, when getting uppity about non-payment of council tax, for instance, will call you to court. Full of trepidation, you show up, you are called to a room in the court building, only to learn that you are sat facing Maggie from Accounts. They merely rented a room in the court building because a) they can b) it is convenient or c) as an intimidation tactic. Or all three, for all I know. What they don't 'fess up to is that they have no legal training whatsoever. None. And here you sit, trying to find justice with a clerk in the accounting department. Full disclosure my arse.

Mark takes a different tack than TFB does, and quite rightly makes this point:

2. It must also be clear that a liability for a tax is not enforceable against a human being, as such. If somebody turns up at HM Revenue & Customs, cheerfully admits that he has been paid cash in hand all his life and spent it all on wine, women and song and does not have a penny to his name, there is b-gger all that the tax man can do about it. For sure, the man could be declared bankrupt or imprisoned, but that does not recover one penny in tax, does it?

Which is impossible to fault.

He then says:

 6. But if we follow Captain Ranty's logic through to its obvious conclusion, then surely the name written down at HM Land Registry also relates to the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES rather than the human being who goes by the name of Roger Hayes? Or does he live in a fantasy world where 'land owners' have rights but no responsibilities and the State (which is all of us obeying these silly little customs, like respecting each other's property and not 'the government' in the narrow sense) does everything out of the goodness of its own heart?

Mark is exactly right. And I don't (yet) have an answer for the first part of his statement. Mark overlooks the fact that Freeman philosophy, more, our way of life, forbids us from encroaching on others. We do respect others' property rights and we mean them no harm whatsoever. The state does nothing "out of the goodness of its own heart". It has no heart. It is a thing. It does not live, and it does not breathe.

And lastly, from Mark:

7. If we are to argue that a human being doesn't have to pay tax because they are distinct from the legal fiction bearing a similar name (the tax only being enforceable against that legal fiction), would it not be a reasonable quid pro quo for the State to tell that human being that he has no rights over any land registered in the name of that legal fiction?

As Roger is arguing that point, you will need to read (or re-read) his opinion on that. I am not yet in a battle with the council over council tax. I am frying other fish, for now. My bugbear, is that all taxation is illegal and unlawful. It needn't be, of course, but the fact is that the set-up today is all the way wrong.

I've said this before but I may as well repeat it. The way our legislation is made is like so:

1. An MP tables a Bill...
2. ...the House of Commons debates it, if they like it, they send it onwards...
3. ...to the House of Lords. There may be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between the two houses, a change here or there in the wording...
4. ...but when all are happy, it goes to queenie for her autograph...
5. ...and alakazam! we have a new piece of legislation.

All of this is fine. It makes sense. Three separate entities have had the opportunity to look at, examine, cogitate, and spit out a new Act. All well and good.

Except that the Parliament Act of 1911 said that the HoC and the HoL does not need queenies autograph. It is assumed, the Act says. They based this assumption on the lie that no monarch had refused to give Assent in the past. Several did, several times. Now, we either make "law" the way I described above, or we don't. If we don't, then we surely need to be told, or preferably, hold a referendum on the way our legislation is brought into being? Until that happens, and whilst politicians are churning out legislation, including ALL legislation concerning taxation, I am happy to ignore it. Lawfully.

So, parliament deliberately weakened queenies standing.

Next, the Labour government in 1999 passed a vile piece of legislation called the House of Lords Act. This act said that hereditary peers could not take their seats despite having Letters Patent. (This Act caused the Barons Committee to be formed in 2001 and Article 61 of the Magna Carta was invoked).

So, parliament deliberately weakened the House of Lords' standing.

Which, when viewed with a clear head means that everything pumped out by parliament since 1911 is......mince. However well-meaning. An example: I take my driving test, and the examiner tells me I have passed. On investigation it turns out that the "examiner" is merely a cleaner at the testing centre, without a driving license himself. Have I passed my test, or would you rightly insist that I was retested? If the foundation is wrong, everything is wrong.

I am a Freeman, (because I say so), and I am a Lawful Rebel. I have several unrebutted affidavits in place to support these statements. The solution lies in Lawful Rebellion. Neither the state nor the monarch has told me to cease and desist. In law remember, he (or she) that does not disagree, agrees. I have yet to test this in court but I long for the day. How can they deny me a defence which was provided for in an 800 year old Treaty? Many wrongly assume that MC1215 is a statute. It is not. It was written 50 years before we even had a parliament. For those that argue that it was not a Treaty between the King and the People, rather it was a Treaty between the King and the Barons, fair enough. For that reason I have revoked my allegiance to the monarch and sworn it instead to the Barons Committee. Never forget that I am using their rules. I didn't fabricate any of this. None of this is about money, per se. It is about my obligation, my duty, to "distress and distrain in all possible ways". I pay my way in life. I always have. I can afford to pay HMRC what they say I owe them tomorrow. In cash, if they so desire. But first, they have to prove to me that I owe them anything.

I'll finish with this thought:

If parliament can (and did) dilute the monarchs' power of assent, if parliament can (and did) dilute those who use decades of experience to help us to enact good legislation, why would it not fool us over something as simple (or horribly complex) as a legal fiction?

Please tell me that I am all the way wrong. If I am, I will accept that with good grace and I will bother you good people no more.

CR.