December 03, 2010

Freeman Essay on The Libertarian Alliance Website

This is a must read for all those interested in the Freeman movement.

It is a fair description of what we are doing but there was one glaring error which I have attempted to correct in the comments section at the Libertarian Alliance site. Professor John Kersey has combined Freeman with Lawful Rebellion. They are not one and the same although both can be done simultaneously. Actually, becoming a Freeman is a choice. Entering Lawful Rebellion is a duty.

I've nicked a chunk of it to whet your appetite, but please get over there and read the whole thing.


Principles of the Freeman on the Land movement

"There is some debate within the movement on exactly how its principles are established and operate, and to a certain extent they are constantly evolving both on the basis of research into the law and in the light of the practical application of these maxims.  However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:
  1. The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that jurisdiction.  A natural person is endowed with a number of inalienable, God-given rights.  That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.
  2. By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally applicable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.
  3. The instrument that is held to represent a given individual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.
  4. The validity of such a contract is questionable because the contract as represented by a birth certificate is entered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) and the state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.
  5. It follows that if the contract is deemed void, it may be possible to separate the natural person (common law) from the legal fiction (civil law).  As a result, whereas the birth certificate (as a piece of paper) is evidence of the legal fiction contracting with the state, that birth certificate is not the same as the natural person represented by the living individual.
Freemen make a distinction between the name of their legal fiction (John Smith) and their natural name (which may take many forms, but is usually expressed as “John: as commonly called of the family Smith”, “John: Smith” or similar.)  They refer to the legal fiction as a “straw man”9 and maintain that it is possible for the natural person to control the straw man as a legal fiction for the purposes of contracting with third parties, without at any point entering into liability on behalf of the natural person.
In addition, it is proposed by some that it is possible to obtain documentary evidence of this separation between natural person and legal fiction by completing and serving a series of sworn affidavits upon the Queen .  The first of these provides, inter alia, that the Queen10 has been unlawfully and falsely induced to give unlawful effect to legislation that has violated and continues to violate the Common Law, with the implication that the security and safety of the individual under the laws that are his or her inalienable birthright (under Common Law) are now threatened without prospect of redress, and that unless the Queen should dismiss the House of Commons and provide redress, then he or she will withhold all allegiance and obedience to the Crown and its representatives. A forty day period is provided for the Queen to act in the manner proposed.  On the assumption that she does not, a second affidavit to be delivered after the forty days confirms the statements of the first and declares the person concerned to be subject solely to the Common Law."

It is absolutely great that Professor Kersey took the time to do this. The movement grows day by day. I think he massively underestimates the numbers involved in this, but it matters not. Successes in court build week by week and the snowball is rolling rapidly down the hill.

All we need to do really, is wait for the Hundredth Monkey Theory to kick in.



IanPJ said...


Worth repetition word for word, have knicked it and will republish, with your permission?

Captain Ranty said...


It is not my essay.

You will need to ask the good professor!


IanPJ said...

Not his stuff, yours..

Am tied up most of today otherwise would write a long piece.

Captain Ranty said...

Of course!

What's mine is yours, mi amigo.


IanPJ said...

Always like to ask first.


Anonymous said...


I read this essay earlier today and wondered about the "England and Wales" reference. Do we Scots have no recourse in ancient common law? Does Scots law prevent us joining the ranks of Freemen?

Anonymous said...

As with all LA publications, you're very welcome to republish this work in its entirety without payment or permission being necessary. So have at it!

In answer to why I didn't include Scots law in my discussion, it is simply because I know too little about it to be able to comment. For all I know there may be an active Scottish Freeman movement already out there, but if so I haven't come across it as yet.

John Kersey

Captain Ranty said...

Anon & John,

The Act of Union 1707 conferred rights the English had to the Scots, and vice versa. There are some obvious differences in Scots law like juries of 15, and the third verdict, but unless anyone can tell me different, we all have the same monarch. Lawful Rebellion is open to all Britons.


Captain Ranty said...

Thanks John.

I will remember that in future.


NewsboyCap said...


a commenter on John's post has linked
to 'scepticwiki' you should take a look, made I larf, that someone can dismiss their own "creator" given rights is truly amazing. If he/she is prepared to research the amount they have to diss' Freemen and yet not believe that they are 'superior'to any 'authority' judges included must not just be asleep but in a state of 'coma'!!!!!!!

Captain Ranty said...


I read that a few weeks ago.

My first reaction was: if I was trying to discredit a movement I would write exactly the same. Sow seeds of doubt.

Who asked the guy to do that write-up, I wonder?

Remember, they have to smear us.

And you are right. It wasn't a human that wrote that it was a Borg.


DAD said...

The us Scots, we need to study the 1707 Act of Union. Here is a start

Article 35 is the key

XXV That all laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said kingdoms

Something to do on these cold and wintery nights. One thing that is interesting is (from a quick scan) that the duty on whisky is illegal. Is that an encouragement for you ?

Steven UK said...

It was a very fair article. I hope Professor John Kersey continues to write on this subject.

It’s nice to see the trolls already in force on the professor's blog. We have the usual link to "skeptic"wiki page on the FMOL coupled with an assertion, with no evidence, that this is just wishful thinking.

will said...

just like to say that i have posted a rambling comment over at the LA but although i have some limited and specific reservations about certain versions of the legal freeman idea i have been an avid fan of any and all forms of individual freedom and this blog in particular. i have only just watched the linked youtube vids of raymond st clair in court and others and they are as inspiring if not more so than all the academic libertarian stuff i also read.
whether it is based on our ancient legal rights or not none of us have ever consented to be governed.
keep it up Cap'n

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for that. I had that link at one time and lost it when I changed computers.

Duty on whisky illegal?!!

Someone should inform Leg Iron immediately!


Captain Ranty said...


I thought so as well.

It is impossible to write about this subject and not mention the scallywags that use a fine concept to get out of paying for 50" plasmas.

Gets on my tits, that does.

My beef is with the government. I have honoured all private contracts and will go on doing so until my last breath.


Captain Ranty said...


I read it just after you posted it.

Rambling? I didn't think so. It is coherent and well written and I do see your point about the legal aspects.

Consent is the key. It is automatically assumed, and it is also automatically assumed that we will never withdraw that consent.

They are dead wrong.


Anonymous said...

Will, thank you for your comments over at the LA blog. For what it is worth, I agree with much of your analysis. One reason why I wanted to write about this subject is because the emphasis of the Freeman movement is upon practical libertarianism and allied concepts such as re-evaluating the sovereignty of the individual and the relationship of the individual and the state.

It seems to me that there is a cognitive dissonance if a group advancing libertarian ideas such as the LA is not in contact with the largest group of people who are actually trying to put libertarianism into practice in the UK. There are some people in the LA who want to change that position and my article is a first step on that road.

One thing which has struck me in my reading and research on these topics is that there is a very substantial moral basis for many who become involved in this movement. That strikes a chord with me and it also contributes to my overall feeling that this is not purely a legal movement but a far broader group with a surprisingly eclectic consensus.

I think it is important to emphasise that the common law is vital not merely as a toolkit for LR but as the essential groundwork for the envisioned relationship between individual and state. To a large extent, the concept and rationale of common law has become ideological for Freemen.

That matters because it means that the movement rests on more than this or that particular law or whether a given legal theory works as a defence to a particular set of charges. To my mind, the argument cannot be reduced to the purely utilitarian discussion of this or that case any more than a political ideology would depend upon any single application of principle.