The Legal Gibberish of “Freeman on the Land”

You’re driving down the street, going as fast as you please and ignoring traffic laws you didn’t consent to. After running a red light enforcing said laws which don’t apply to you, you see the blue flashing lights of a police cruiser. While you are within your common law rights to demand any sum of money to pull over, you decide to make it easy on the government enforcer and stop. When the police officer approaches your car, you immediately ask “Under what Authority and under what law are you ACTING?”

The government enforcer can’t quote the common law statute that authorizes him to act (why would he, he’s only an agent of the state), only demand to see your license, registration and proof of insurance. However, these statutory obligations don’t apply to you, and you refuse. The officer asks what your name is, to which you reply “are you seeking a publicly registered legal personality created by the state?” The officer, predictably, orders you out of the car at gun point, arrests you and reads you your “rights.” When asked if you understand these rights, you reply “I do not stand under that statement, nor do I stand under any statement.” Then you’re led into the police car.

What am I talking about? What does all this gibberish mean? It’s just a sampling of the standard tactics used by the “Freeman on the Land” movement. Also known as FOTL, it’s a version of the sovereign citizen movement that’s rapidly catching on with scofflaws in Canada and England, and causing an increasing amount of chaos with courts and judges who don’t know how to combat its nuisance and the belligerent arrogance of those who apply it. To detractors, it’s a jargon-laden way to pretend the laws of your country don’t apply to you. But to its advocates, it’s nothing less than grabbing freedom back from an illegal government that took it away from you at birth.

Some of the legal justification for freeman tactics. Read it if you can.

Some of the legal justification for freeman tactics. Read it if you can.

So what exactly does “freeman on the land” mean? And are any of these tactics legal? While both sovereign citizen and FOTL attempt to use common law statutes and nuisance litigation to avoid paying taxes and break laws they don’t feel apply to them, the movements go about it somewhat differently. Traditional American sovereign citizen movements, tax protestor organizations or Christian Patriots rely on debunked interpretations of various Constitutional amendments and federal laws to “prove” that they aren’t citizens of the United States but of their own state or personal country – meaning those pesky laws and taxes don’t apply to them. Many of these tactics have been around for decades, though none of them have ever been proven to work.

On the other hand, FOTL is fairly new, with the term only being coined around 2005 by Canadian tax protestor Robert-Arthur:Menard (sic) to describe a person who is literally (except not at all) a “free man” on the land where they live.

It relies on the concept of “lawful rebellion” to assert that freemen haven’t consented to a contract with the federal government, and instead live under some nebulous combination of maritime law, common law, various 16th century statues and an obscure clause in the Magna Carta which only stood as law for three months. They view government as a corporation, one that they never agreed to be in business with, and one that uses a special, trick-laden language called “legalese” to trap citizens into surrendering their rights from birth. By refusing consent with the laws of this corporation, I break their hold on me and they don’t apply. A core tenant of FOTL is that all people have two identities: one is their flesh and blood personage, with freedoms endowed from birth and the other is their government identity, which is written out in all capital letters and used on official documents – often called a “strawman.”

A typical FOTL legal "notice." (

A typical FOTL legal “notice.” (

It hasn’t really caught on in the US, but is becoming a serious issue in English, Irish and Canadian courts, which are starting to become clogged by FOTL claimants who believe the government has no hold on them, that they’ve broken their consent with the laws of the land (and are therefore “free men”) and that private contracts are meaningless. They’re racking up unpaid taxes and rent while attempting to break the law at will. And while FOTL doesn’t seem to dovetail with violence the way sovereign citizen movements do, there is an inherent element of lawlessness to it.

To use myself as an example, if I were a freeman on the land, I would say that “MIKE ROTHSCHILD” is my government-assigned strawman identity, and that “Mike Rothschild” is my God-given flesh and blood identity, which I can legally obscure by adding in meaningless identifiers or punctuation (ie, declaring myself to be “Mike:Rothschild” or “Mike of the family Rothschild.”) This is similar to sovereign citizens adding random commas to their name, such as survivalist author James Wesley, Rawles. So if I were a freeman, and I broke the law, it would be my strawman persona that did it, not my flesh and blood one. I would view that law as illegitimate, as I never gave consent to it. And when a citation arrived bearing my government strawman name, it would be null and void to me, as it’s sent to a legal representative of myself to whom I give no recognition.

If I do choose to meet with a government official as a result of a summons, I would insist that the meeting take place under common law (as opposed to maritime law, which is what FOTL believers think courts operate under), demand to see evidence of the oath taken by the judge, refuse legal representation (as all lawyers are contracted with the governmental corporation) and rely on the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 to declare that I have been lost at sea for seven years, and am therefore legally dead. If this fails, I would simply object to everything the judge says and refuse my consent to any legal proceeding.

There’s much more to FOTL, but those are the basic pillars. And if it all has the familiar patina of exquisitely detailed gibberish that all conspiracy theories have, it should. Freeman on the land relies on willful misinterpretation of a millennium of law to construct a world where anarchy reigns and anyone can do anything they want, provided they “know their rights” – rights that are entirely made up. Legalese might be a catchy way to refer to complex, jargon-laden legal language, but it is not actually a language, and jamming punctuation or capital letters into your name doesn’t have any statutory effect on it.

In fact, none of what FOTL attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of strawman personas, notices of intent, not “standing under” understanding, nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every FOTL attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.

In response to a particularly troublesome divorce case, where a freeman attempted to fine the court using a massive writ, Canadian judge J.D. Rooke wrote an equally massive, highly detailed and well-researched decision that demolishes every freeman argument. Not that it will deter any potential freeman from exerting their “rights,” but it’s worth a read if you have some time.

Bob Dylan once sang “to live outside the law, you must be honest.” To be a freeman on the land attempts the first with absolutely no regard paid to the second – and fails at both.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

347 Responses to The Legal Gibberish of “Freeman on the Land”

  1. Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, says:

    we had that in the 70’s in Oz where a cessation from the commonwealth was requested.

    • hypothetically speaking says:

      Rothschild keeps trying to base his arguments on vague, non-specific generalities, which lack specific relevance. Does Rothschild cite even one actual instance of harm done by anyone using the techniques he (Rothschild) baselessly denounces (=denounces without reference to any recorded fact)? Rothschild’s opinions on this subject, with no cite of fact which can be cross-checked and verified independently, are reduced to being examples of the worst kind of pseudo-science, carefully disguised as “knowledgeable opinion” by the use of non-specific generalities (=which can neither be denied nor confirmed), but which fake the appearance of informed opinion for the benefit of the gullible (=the majority of the “dumb-down” population of the US, UK, Oz, and other Rothschild or/and Zionist-infiltrated “demockeries”). @ Rothschild: your ill-gotten-inheritance under-drawers are peeking out. God’s Peace and Love to ya’.

      • I’m sorry, what was the question?

        • D says:

          The Canadian judge J.D. Rooke decision was not a massive, highly detailed and well-researched decision but judicial fraud. Jurisdiction was admitted by the Respondent. Everything after that was Irrelevant. The arguments were valid AND enforceable. The Respondent merely nullified them by accepting jurisdiction. But why am I telling you something you already know?

          • Rob says:

            And yet strangkly no one has ever been successful with these supposedly “valid AND enforceable” arguments.

        • Shawn says:

          When I started to read your article I was quite interested. Then I discovered you are just a child and have not educate yourself. I am not a freeman nor do I choose to live that way. But you should go and read the Human Rights declaration and also the Canadian constituition. Just because the schooling you took didn’t teach you that we have fundamental rights doesn’t make it not relevant. Common law is still practiced in law today. And if you had have done any research you would know that court was derived from the court of the sea or Admiral court. So go read some books and come back and re-edit your article.

        • Felipe: Fernandez says:

          Mike Rothschild,
          You’ve stated that “Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics…”. Mike, you’ve lost all credibility in your argument. You would do well to research a little better when attempting to give a factual statement when it is nothing more than your ignorant opinion.

          Presented bellow is Case Law/Common Law. Also because you’ve stated “none of what FOTL attempts to use has any legal effect.” I’ve also included “California Penal Code”. That make if VERY CLEAR that Freemen and those that exercise their Rights under “Common Law” are not some kind of long and dead forgotten archaic form of Laws. This is very real and alive today. I’ve also provided you with a video that prove educational.

          “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or [automobile], is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing an others Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” [emphasis added]
          ~ American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135.

          “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
          ~ Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

          “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.”
          ~ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287 225 F2d 938, at 941.

          “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
          ~ Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US436, 491.

          “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
          ~ Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

          “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”
          ~ Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

          “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
          ~ Bennett v. Boggs, 1Baldw 60,

          “The Constitution of these United States is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND. Any law that is repugnant to the CONSTITUTION is NULL AND VOID of law.”
          [The justices held, through Marshall’s forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” In other words, when the Constitution–the nation’s highest law–conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid.]
          ~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803)

          “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
          ~ Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943)

          “If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the RIGHT with IMPUNITY.”
          ~ Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969)

          “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the CONSTITUTION without violating his undertaking to support it.”
          ~CASE# Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Look what was STOLEN…
            from you and I our >>> FREEDOM!!! <<>>common law<<>>no application<<>>No person<<>>the Constitution<<>>the Constitution or laws of the United States<<< in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision…"
            ~ PENAL CODE
            SECTION 422.6-422.865

          • Noah Dillon says:

            What does that mean? I don’t understand your comment.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            So who has successfully used freeman arguments in court? These out-of-context quotations don’t really address what your complaint appears to be.

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            @ Noah Dillon
            I don’t know what happen. That last post that you are referring to go all scrambled. Here it is again I hope it comes out this time.

            ILLEGAL and Unconstitutional Penal Code Law DOES NOT supersede The Law of the Land “The Constitution” as stated within California Law

            ” Sec. 4. The rule of the >>>common law<<>>no application<<>>No person<<>>the Constitution<<>>the Constitution or laws of the United States<<< in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision…"
            ~ PENAL CODE
            SECTION 422.6-422.865

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            “Penal Code Sec. 422.6. (a) >>>No person<<>>the Constitution<<>>the Constitution or laws of the United States<<< in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision…"
            ~ PENAL CODE
            SECTION 422.6-422.865

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Noah I don’t know why. But the wording is getting mixed up after I post it. However, the Links seam to be fine. You can read what I’m quoting from directly off of the State of California Web site by clicking the links.

            I’m attempting to show that Mike is wrong that the Laws Free Men are using “Common Law” a.k.a. Constitutional Law is real and has been used successfully

            VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
            “…in England there is no written constitution, no fundamental law, nothing visible, nothing real, nothing certain, by which a statute can be tested. In America the case is widely different: Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision.

            What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by
            >>>>the mighty hand of the people,<<<<>>>>>>> the supreme law of the land<<<<<<<<>>>>void<<<<<>>>>sovereign<<<<<, and unlimited capacity."



          • Felipe, did you bother reading what you copypastaed?

            “while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing an others Rights”

            A person running a stop sign because they didn’t consent to the jurisdiction of stop signs is not conducting themselves in “an orderly and decent manner” as they are imperiling the safety of others. There is no right to put someone else in danger because you feel like it, and no court anywhere will back you up on that.

            Freeman on the Land is another term for “the rules don’t apply to me.” And I’m sorry, but they do.

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Noah, I figured out what was causing my posting to get all scrambled. The arrows I was using to emphasize the sustenance was doing something funky to the post after I hit submit. I think it was server thought it was html code. Here is my last post with the arrows removed

            VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
            “…in England there is no written constitution, no fundamental law, nothing visible, nothing real, nothing certain, by which a statute can be tested. In America the case is widely different: Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision.

            What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.

            The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.

            What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.

            The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity.”


          • Noah Dillon says:

            No. It’s not at all crystal clear. This stuff is the most opaque and indecipherable junk I’ve ever read. It makes no sense at all.

            Dude, you didn’t answer my question and the things you’re posting don’t mean anything concrete and it’s basically all inaccurate. And the reason you can cite all sorts of case law is because the constitution is the basic framework of government, not its total construction. Every part of government has traditions, rules, ordinances, and other restrictions and permissions that are interpreted or expanded from the constitution, or that are extra-constitutional. For example: term limits weren’t added to the constitution until 1951. The definition of cruel and unusual punishment has been significantly enlarged since 1797. What is “an unreasonable search and seizure,” in a constitutional sense? To know the answer you’d have to dig through more than 250 years of case law to come up with some boundaries, which change and develop along with society and technology. The same is true of every other statute, augmented by laws, budgets, etc. etc. Our constitution is kind of a mess in a lot of ways, which is why it’s constantly getting dragged into court to be examined and interpreted.

            The constitution is a set of restrictions on government that are interpreted by the government’s officers, with the consent of the people. However, just because you don’t want to consent doesn’t mean everything and everyone else is wrong or deluded; and as of yet, no Freeman has produced any evidence to the contrary. I’d agree with Mike that the general attitude seems to be that you have special privileges, special magical phrases, and other special pleading that the rules don’t apply to you. And if you want to equate license plates and taxation with tracking chips, you’re welcome to, but it’s really an absurd straw man. If you’re concerned about being tracked, please do write me an anonymous letter—you’re on the Internet and your IP is probably not hard for anyone to determine.

            The UK does have a written constitution. In 1795 they didn’t have a document called “The Constitution,” but they had several similar documents and case law, and a lot has changed since the time your quote there was written. So I don’t know what that claim is supposed to show. Basically, none of this is at all clear. It’s a bunch of cherry-picked nonsense strung together from bits and pieces of decontextualized case law and it makes 0 sense, either legally or socially or anything else.

            And don’t worry, the US government has shown time and again that it is totally unwilling to infringe on the 2nd amendment beyond a certain limit, which is one of the most permissive limits in the developed world. You and your children and your children’s grandchildren will all have the legal right to buy semi-automatic weapons, which I personally actually think is pretty much just fine.

          • Oh, Felipe, Mr. Sprinkle, the person in the YouTube video you posted who claims “I don’t drive, I travel?” Yeah, his suit against Governor Reagan was thrown out of court.


            The guy in the first YouTube video, Donald Sullivan, who claims he won in court? He didn’t. He was hit with a suspended sentence and $1,000 in fines and court costs by a North Carolina appeals court who ordered him to get tags for his car.


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            @ Mike,
            In a Constitutional “Republic” unless their is a REAL HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD VICTIM there is no crime. There needs to be ether damage or harm done to someone or a breech of contract for their to constitute a crime. However, Penal Code is were The State Becomes not only the victim but both the Prosecutor and judge as well.

            Lets take the seat belt law for instance:
            YOU might have got into a accident. You MIGHT have cost the state money to treat you. So now you owe the state $$$$.

            Mike do you know what CAPITIS DIMNUTIO MAXIMA is?

            Do yourself a favor… Take the time to know what this is.


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Law Dictionary: What is CAPITIS DIMINUTIO? definition of CAPITIS DIMINUTIO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

            : Capitis diminutio maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights. Capitis diminutio media. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights. Capitis diminutio minima. Tile lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 1G, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom. Law.


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Were you aware of this before you asked for the driving privilege and registered your car?

            “Automobile owned by individual not in business is ‘consumer goods”.
            In re Rave, 7 UCC rep. Serv 258.

            “An automobile purchased for personal and family use was ‘consumer goods’”.
            Bank of Boston v. Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A.2d. 484

            “The use of an automobile by its owner for purposes of traveling to and from his work is a personal, as opposed to a business use as that term is defined in the California Commercial Code 9109(1), and the automobile will be classified as ‘consumer goods’ rather than equipment. The phraseology of §9102(2) defining goods used or bought for use primarily in business seems to contemplate a distinction between the collateral automobile ‘in business’ and the mere use of the collateral automobile for some commercial, economic or income producing purpose by one not engaged in ‘business’”.
            In re Barnes, 11 USS rep. Serv. 697 (1972)

            “So long as one uses his private property for private purposes and does not devote it to the public use, the public has no interest in it and no voice in its control.”
            Assoc. Pipe v. Railroad Comm. 176 Cal. 518.

            “Under the UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchase for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative”.
            James Talcott, Inc. v. Gee, 5 UCC rep. Serv. 1028, 266 cal.App.2d. 384, 72 Cal..Reptr. (1968).

            “The use to which an item is put rather than its physical characteristics determine whether it should be classified as ‘consumer goods’ under UCC §9-109(1) or ‘equipment’ under UCC §9-109(2)”.
            Grimes v. Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep. Serv. 655, 355 So. 2d. 338 (Ala., 1978)

            “The classifications of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive”.
            McFadden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep. Serv. 766, 260 Md. 601, 273, A.2d. 198 (1971)

            “The term ‘household goods’..includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household”.
            Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d. 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App.75 , 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

            “Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ‘consumer goods’ as defined in UCC §9-109″.
            Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep. Serv. 1035, 415 S.W.2d. 347 (Tenn.App., 1966)

            “ A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort and welfare of the householder or of the family”.
            Aurther v. Morgan., 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D.Ny 1884)

            Courts have no right, no power, to extend statute by construction, so as to dispense with any conditions legislature has seen fit to impose. Gassner v. Patterson, (1863) 23 C. 299; likewise, the Courts must take the statute as they find it. It is their duty to construe it as it stands enacted.
            Callahan v. San Francisco, (1945) 68 CA2d. 286, 156 P.2d. 479; Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Investigators Asso. v. Santa Clara County, (1975) 51 CA3d. 255, 124 Cal.Rptr. 115.

            Courts are not at liberty to extend application of law to subjects not included within it.
            Spreckles v. Graham (1924) 194 C. 516, 228 P. 1040


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            If you are having trouble believing that just because you and most of those in Law Enforcement have forgotten what CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT MEAN. Please don’t believe me. But why don’t you take time to hear what CONSTITUTIONAL SHERIFFS are now saying!!!

            If the state made a “Penal Code” that would make slavery legal again does NOT make it CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. However, I fear that those like you that worship that State and the Laws that are legislating our rights away would still argue that “It must be law because its in the Penal Code”!

            WAKE UP!


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Constitutional Sheriffs… The Last Line of Defense – Trailer (


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            I don’t know what you are choosing to read and believe creatable But that like you provided supposedly “Debunking Charly Sprinkle” is ether hosted by YOU or someone that maintaining a “Court Journal” that only lists this issue alone.

            If you would like a REAL LINK to CREDIBLE SPEAKERS. Here is a link that has NOTHING BUT SHERIFFS that are now speaking out about UNCONSTITUTIONAL Statutes, Penal Codes.


          • Looks like just another cult of anti-government yahoo birthers.


            Anyway, I’m not going to respond to your Gish Gallop of links and videos. But I’ll say this: if you truly think you have a right to drive without tags, plates or a license, go ahead and see how far you get with it. I doubt it’ll be long before you’re pulled over, then you can spam your arresting officer with links all the way to a holding cell.

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            first I want to apologize for not remaining a little more approachable. You may not believe this but I do value a good and honest criticism of my world view. Whether it is concerning my faith or my political views. How else is one to know if what one believe is right or not, unless it can stand up to the scrutiny ones peers. I believe in allowing the evidence to lead the direction. Much like the “Ockham’s razor” principle:
            “the simplest answer is most often correct”.

            I wold also like to clarify that in no way am I nor anyone that is standing up for their Constitutional Rights is saying that No Law Applies to them. On the contrary, Civil Law, Case Law, Common Law, Constitutional Law applies to each and every one of us. These Laws address REAL VICTIMS where there has been actual harm or damage done to a human being or property, or a breech of contract. If anyone violates these laws a judge presides over the case that has NO INTEREST in who wins between Plaintiff and Defendant.

            However, the difference between the Laws mentioned above is night and day form Penal Codes, Statutes, City Ordinances, Acts of Legislation, and Executive Orders. These are “PRE-CRIME LAWS” or better known as victimless crime laws much like the ones in the movie Minority Report staring Tom Cruz. Where the only supposed “VICTIM” is the State e.g. Seat Belt Laws, Possession or use of Marijuana, Guns, and High Capacity Magazines, etc. When and individual violates these laws the tables are slanted because The State is all three Victim, Prosecutor, and Judge!

            Ask yourself this… Is a Statute, or Penal Code “Due Process of Law” under the definition given under the Constitution? Because under the Constitution “Due Process” means that without a JURY TRIAL FIRST Government/Police CAN NOT TAKE your life (KILL), Liberty (FREEDOM), or Property (AUTOMOBILE). Who then is REALLY breaking the law if a Cop is TAKING PRIVET PROPERTY just because a Statute Violation.

            We all have been so disconnected to what is FREEDOM. Mike I do really hope you do watch the videos I’ve provided. I would really like your feed back.


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803)
            “The Constitution of these United States is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND. Any law that is repugnant to the CONSTITUTION is NULL AND VOID of law.”
            [The justices held, through Marshall’s forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” In other words, when the Constitution–the nation’s highest law–conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid.]

            Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943)
            “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

            Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969)
            “If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the RIGHT with IMPUNITY.”


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Have you heard of the “Oath Keepers”. It is founded by Yale Law School graduate and Professor Stewart Rhodes, former Army Para Trooper and Columnist for SWAT Magazine.

            OATH KEEPERS are “CURRANT” and former Police and Military, as well as Privet Citizens have taken the “Oath” to uphold and defend the Constitution NOT Penal Code or Statute Laws

            OATH KEEPERS: Solders for the Constitution

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            What do you think the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is for??? For hunting and sports?
            Take a good hard look at the TRUTH.

            The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment – The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            Obama’s Ex-Secret Service Agent SPEAKS OUT:
            It’s Not Gun Control… It’s People Control

          • Noah Dillon says:

            Is he one of those dudes that got fired for drinking too much and sleeping with prostitutes? Or is he one of those Secret Service agents that got fired for drinking too much and crashing a car into the White House? Or is he one of the Secret Service agents that got fired for not securing the president in Atlanta? Or the one that forgot his bullets in the hotel room of a woman he picked up at a bar while on duty? Or is he one of the guys that couldn’t prevent a dude from jumping the White House fence and running through the president’s home with a knife?

            I mean, really, you’re just listening to this disgruntled guy because he’s telling you what you want to hear. How much was he paid to say that stuff? Why can’t he and the other Secret Service agents control themselves or anyone else?

            And what does this have to do with Freeman stuff?

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            are you and those that hold the same views that you do, really going to wait till it gets this bad till you OPEN YOUR EYES???


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            If you truly think that is “Just a Movie” or “It will never get that bad”…. Then I challenge you to view this!!!


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            I’m sure you think this is all B.S.
            Take a look look at this IBM Commercial. Things are happening right now that you may have never thought possible before.

            IBM Implantable RFID Chip Commercial

          • Why is that implantable? why isn’t it a rfid chip in your Credit Card and chips attached to the food? Why do you think that the nefarious implantable chip to buy groceries is what is going to happen? I am more concerned about someone putting raw packaged meat in their pocket rather than a bag. That is the dumbest part of that advertisement.

          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            it’s truly sad that for the most part is that men like you are the only ones that can really make a difference when it comes to OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT! However, the only thing we get from you is name calling to and dismiss the real issue. Mike it’s not about “Right-Wing” or Left, it’s about RIGHT OR WRONG!!!


          • Felipe: Fernandez says:

            @ Noah,
            I bring up what Ex-Secret Service Agent “Dan Gongino” because not only is he is relevant to the subject, I also believe he is just a little more credible that someone speaking out of his garage with a beer in one hand and a gun in the other. As far as just discrediting former Agent Gorgino with everything you said. WOW… Noah, What and who will you listen to then! Because this guy is clean, with an honorable history record.

            The Freeman Movement has to do with The Constitution, and the RIGHTS associated with them. From ones 2nd Amendment Rights to posses or use ANY GUN to the Right to do, posses, or use anything as long as it does not infringe, harm, or damage anyone elses Rights, Person, or Property.

            Here is the video in its entirety:
            Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD

          • Lawyer. says:

            I know all that copypasta must have seemed very legalistic and convincing to you when you read it, but if you had the proper education and framework, you would understand it in no way proves what you think it does. I have had the benefit of a doctorate of jurisprudence, although it is possible to self-study law if you use the right resources and commit a lot of time. You have clearly done neither, and your lack of understanding is glaring.

            1- The right to travel does not mean the right to travel without regulation or restriction. It is not *your* feeling of what that right should encompass that is important, but rather that of the courts. The courts have held that state laws and regulations do *not* violate your right to travel. If they did, they would have been struck down.

            2 – The right to travel is not in the constitution. It has been interpreted by the courts, and thus is subject to revision by the courts.

            3- It is very vital to SHEPHARDIZE your cases. Case citations are meaningless without the correct follow-though. Subsequent court decisions may overturn in part, narrow, or clarify prior holdings. It is clear you have not done this here, and are citing cases without checking whether the are good law and represent the current law of the land.

            4- The ability to interpret the law is a skill honed with careful practice. You do not posess this skill. A lot of your conclusions are indeed gibberish.

            5 – Blacks law dictionary is not law. Had you undertaken any serious study of the law, you would know that this is considered parol evidence, disfavored and admissible only after other avenues of interpretation have been explored. A dictionary can never make law, nor can it override the meaning defined within a law.

            6- You have utterly failed to do what you set out to – prove that someone has prevailed with these arguments. You cut and paste reasons you think someone *should* but there are good reasons they have failed. While they may look good to you, they will not impress a judge, because they are ultimately a bunch of gibberish cobbled together with things that sound good to someone who has not bothered to understand how the law really works.

            Reading websites and books that attempt to shore up your confirmation bias is not education. Reinforcing your pseudolegal beliefs is not learning the law. Also, you clearly don’t know what pseudoscience is, as you are using the word all wrong.

            If you are serious about learning these things, I suggest you go to the library and get a book written by Lawrence Tribe or Charles Fried. If you are not willing to undertake serious study, I suggest you not try to educate others as to what the “real” law is. You are wholly unqualified.

        • ian says:

          I don’t believe he asked any questions? The fact remains that your article is very weak with little to no source material to support your view. I have no axe to grind with you but if you want your argument to have any credence then please use facts to back up your case…if not then you are no better than those you wish to disparage.
          Be fair,fight cleanly.

          • Rog says:

            Mr. lawyer dude,
            Montana title 61-1-1 (53) “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, or other legal entity.
            (20) “Driver” means a PERSON who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle (Of course this is gibberish, but there it is.)
            So, we find at 61-8-336. Turning movements and required signals. (1) A PERSON may not turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required by 61-8-333 or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and until an appropriate signal has been given. A PERSON may not turn a vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this section.

            So, to whom do these statutes apply? Survey says, PERSONS!

      • Eric Hall says:

        This is one of the most eye-opening things about Mike blogging for Skeptoid – the number of people that believe he belongs to a family that runs the world and the amount of antisemitism that still exists. Simply amazing.

        • FreeManUnderSatanicRegime says:

          Being against the Rothschilds is not “antisemitism” but “antizionism” which is a completely diffrent thing.
          The Zionists hide themselfs behind judeism and call themselfs semites. Its only smoke and mirrors, used to make us argue about who is a hater and who is not, while they work on bringing together one world government, chipping us all like cattle and grabbing all the land. It is also interesting that someone who goes by the name “Rothschild” is against empowering people, so that they know how to stand up for themselfs and stand in their power as free men and women free and equal to one another under God, which really is the only idea behind the Freeman Movement. So I can agree that is likely that he is a Rothschild or that he is trying to get our attention at least 🙂

          • So your saying you are not antisemitic because you claim that Jews are only using their Jewishness to hide from the fact that they are an evil conspiracy???

            What eric said is appropriate. No one ever calls me propatier on this blog every time they start with an accusatory reply. They are using his name like it is a derogatory term.

      • Xabre says:

        I find it intesting how these so called “Debunkers” always fail debunking the FOTL movement.The fact is, is that the Feeman Movement is picking up steam exponentially around the world because of the fact they take the law and reverse engineer it …in other words they extract the real meaning of the law, and use it against the very people that wrote it and that my freinds has never been done before, and that has the Judicial going absolutely crazy. if fact the judicial and governments are so desperate to squash it they are demonizing the Freemen at every opportunity, and in court their only option is throwing a Freeman in jail for contempt, because thats all they got.
        The truth is the Freeman are using “Common Law” and that my friends are what the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independance were written under, and Common Law if claimed in a court of law favors the Freemen and not the judiciary.

        • thomas says:

          It is weird,Islamist would like Sharia law to replace our laws.
          No thanks! I do not wish to be beheaded if I am gay or take my clothes off to swim natural at a beach,but FOTL even a pedophile can claim no Joinder or “contract” as the child was out of joinder.
          and didn’t knowingly enter into a “contract” this is what the woojoo is allowing.

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

            Thomas, you have no idea what you’re talking about and deciphering your keyboard mashing is just as difficult for us all, however:

            The common law is all about causing no harm, loss or damage to another’s life, liberty or property. That’s all one needs to know.

            Statute, legislation, regulation, codes etc can’t be called “law” because they’re already named statute etc and only deal in commerce, which is why your all-caps name is on everything you use for commerce.

            Governments around the world are registered commercial entities and de-facto, not de-jure.

            Think about it. For all of Earth’s history we’ve had the God-given right of locomotion. No man or woman has lawful power over another unless there’s a contract.

            Now, we create government to administer certain areas of our communities while we’re busy growing them. If no man has power over another, then a creation of man (government) certainly doesn’t.

            All of a sudden, government comes along and says you can’t travel on the roads you paid for because somebody you don’t know dreamed it up and wrote it down, making it “illegal”.

            But they gave you a way out: sign this piece of paper with your all-caps name on it and it’s all good again.


            You’ve just signed away your right to locomotion and contracted with some commercial entity that has no actual force of law unless harm is done to another, because they threatened you and you believed them.

            Anything that can be made “legal” must already be fundamentally “lawful”. Often however, governments legalise their practices to force you to comply, which is still unlawful. Get it now?

      • Stephan Toth says:

        Hmmm, my first thought is to the name Rothschild that suggests he a man of the ‘system’ who who is biased and has a vested interest in putting people off using their rights.

        He is also very ignorant when it comes to the Magna Carta because even though that document was produced in 1215 it is highly relevant as the English Constitution today.

        The fact is, many kings and governments have claimed to have repealed clauses of the Magna Carta and today the government claim that there are only two clauses left that have not been repealed. However, these idiots one and all simply do not understand the most important clause of them all.

        That is the one that says the Magna Carta is in force in its entirety for perpetuity. This simply means that the Magna Carta cannot be watered down, changed in any way or cancelled in part or as a whole EVER.

        To address the second point that Rothchild does not seem to understand is that Common Law is the only real LAW of the land.

        Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instruments, By Laws, Rules and Regulations are NOT LAWS.

        They are only demands made by those who claim to have authority over us; they are given the power of law through the consent of the people at the time of implementation.


        If what I am saying is wrong or inaccurate, then let him explain me why so many Freemen have successfully used the principles that he is trying to rubbish?

        Perhaps he should do a lot more research before spouting off and claiming to be knowledgeable about this subject.

      • Mark Gambera says:

        To people who staunchly believe in FOTL, where are your victories in court? And don’t point out that guy with the big bushy beard who didn’t pay for a fishing license. When did someone get out of paying their home loan and kept the house?

        • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

          Just rebut their presumption and you don’t have to go to court. If you don’t want to pay your home loan search “get out of debt free”.

      • Nick Marston says:

        Are we to infer that your argument (if it may be dignified as such) is founded on the fact that the surname of the reporter is Rothschild and not on any real understanding of the law? By “understanding” I mean comprehension the normal linguistic sense rather than the contortion adopted by “freemen on the land”.

        • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

          The term “understand” to mean “stand under” isn’t a contortion “adopted” by anyone. It’s literal trickery. I mean, why do you think cops always blather some heavily practiced statutory diatribe and then ask:

          “Do you understand that?”

          They NEVER use the word “comprehend”. Why would they bother to put those very 2 words together when they could use “comprehend”?

          Do you understand now?

      • kirk says:

        I’m all for you brother, until, that is you mention zionist. What the hell does zionism have to do with being a free man? It has everything to do with being an anti-semite though.

      • Graham Nicholls says:

        You think you’re smart with your use of language – the rest of us think “what an immature fool”. If you use a phrase “baselessly denounces”, you do not need to go on to explain what you mean by it. – it adds nothing, and confirms our collective opinion of you. If you want an intelligent conversation about the social contract, jurisprudence, and the rights of man, then use the language which the rest of us agree on. Otherwise we see your silly posts for the flim-flam which they are. (=nonsensical or insincere talk).

    • Troy says:

      Not talking about the commonwealth (Dingleheimer), do keep up…

  2. Glaxo Smith-Wilson says:

    I have heard American libertarians reason very similarly using the words ‘sui juris persona’ (should really be ‘sui juris in propria persona’) rather than ‘freeman on the land’. There are people who do try this sort of thing in court.

    • Troy says:

      Yeah, they are called intelligent people. You delusional people think you’re in a scifi movie or something. Can’t see how you raise sane children or have intelligently conversations germane to reality. You watch animated cartoons with your children and think: “It’s possible…elephants ears are large enough to act as wings.” (smh). So it is no stretch for you and the rich, spoiled kid (Rothschild) to accept the nonsense that a group of people, occupying a certain geographical area of land (State), can, collectively, and, in actuality, file a criminal complaint against one individual for allegedly violating each and everyone of their rights…collectively?

      Oh, no, wait, actually, they are all represented in a so-called court (what type of court is it?) by one delusional retard, calling himself a “State’s Attorney.” But such nonsense (that word again) omits the common sense fact that in order for there to be a true “tribunal” there must be two adverse parties before the court, and not their representatives (Lawful counsel.) Does that not make sense to you? Pay attention closely, if I (God forbid) slapped you in the mouth so hard that the contact drew blood (it is a sensitive area bodily skin), who’s right did I violate? And please, use the good commons sense God gave you. How, on God’s green (actually multicolored) earth, would someone miles away or even a few feet (an actually human being like ourselves) complain about you getting slapped, as if he was actually slapped? And, though he may, lucid people would admit that he wasn’t injured in any way…perhaps just a witness.

      The so-called “state’s attorney: “Jon Hinkleberry on behalf of the state, your honor.” (Where the hell is it?)

      The so-called “public” defender: “Mustafa Habibatut on behalf of the defendant, your honor, who is present in open court. (He’d better have his ass here or I’d issue my lawless bench warrant.”

      Now tell me, good teacher, why does one party have to be present and the other doesn’t? What LAW substantiates this “legal theory?” (Please. Do be candid and detailed.) I wait…

  3. Jon Richfield says:

    Ambrose Bierce (of Devil’s Dictionary fame) wrote a few items addressing similar concepts. He did not have Judge Rooke’s responsibilities, but then he did convey a few salient points pretty concisely.

  4. Mango B. Coconut says:

    Well I’m an Englishman living in England and I’ve never heard of this movement nor of any impact it’s causing in the courts.

    And believe me, if it really were a problem the Daily Mail would be shouting about it.

    • Castielstar says:

      Same, in England and it’s a new one on me! There was that one guy who declared himself king of a field somewhere in the south, and the people who live on Sealand, but it’s a handful of oddities, NOT a growing problem.

    • Anonymous says:

      Check out YoutTube – there are hundreds of examples of so called Freemen in action. I must admit, in many cases on there the police don’t do themselves any favours and are completely befuddled by the Freeman/Consent rubbish.

    • Anonymous says:

      Im also in England and i have seen this in action. It appears to work. It will become an issue if the monetary system doesn’t change, bankers getting richer and richer whilst we get poorer and poorer. there was an episode of a show like traffic cops on tv and I saw a guy putting this theory to action, everyone thought he was mad but I knew what he was doing. he failed to provide a breath sample and threatened an hourly rate of £2000 and also at the police station. however he still was released without charge, hmmmm wonder why. Before people start going into the morals of it as I do not condone any form of drink driving, morals went out the window as soon as your mother and father registered your birth. if you dig deep and research the subject you will find stuff out. the public are just too blind to see it and are very narrow minded

      • You Fail says:

        Oh dear you really like to grasp at the straws of one instance where your ‘freeman’ nonsense ‘worked’ but ignore the 99.99% other times were the police and courts are laughing at you?

        • You fail, we’ll your name describes you pretty we’ll, you remind me of a popular piece of crockery, I think it’s called a mug. I should imagine second hand car salesmen rub their hands in glee at your approach. If for one moment you think the current crock that rule the world have the God given right to even run a bath let alone a country then my friend you need to carry out more research.

        • What do you say to the statistic that only about 1/8 of 1% of US African slaves ever escaped to freedom? Do you laugh at them who escaped? One at a time is how it’s done.

      • Stephan Toth says:

        I do agree with Anonymous, as a Freeman, I believe that the use of our constitution and individual rights is like using salt on a meal. It should be used sparingly and not bandied about just to antagonise the police or others in authority.

        The fact is, Regina-v-JAH 14 May 2011 literally debunked the authority of all of the government systems including the police authority and power.

        Check it out.

        However, if we are to be protected from the idiots and criminals in society who wish to do us harm, we have to give credence to those who believe they are in authority over us as if they still had that authority and power.

        Obviously if they choose to overstep the line and abuse the powers that we allow them to have, then we have a civic duty to rein them in and educate them as to the realities of life.

        As with everything else in life, one has to look upon the situation as a cost – benefit exercise e.g. is the confrontational situation worth making an issue of or is it insignificant and better to simply let it slide this time.



      • camazotz says:

        So we have a modern, agreed-upon system of governance and law designed to protect me and other innocents from someone who is irresponsibly and dangerously drunk, but because he is part of a select few who believe that the system of governance and law must adhere to an archaic standard which the majority population does not espouse, he can get off scott free. And even better, his Freeman standard in his eyes allows him to continue to be a risk up to the point at which he actually harms someone. Right.

        More likely the police in this instance were aware that their time was being wasted by a guy with an axe to grind and a false ideology to pimp.

        The public is not blind here. Social Contracts are something that happens between all people, and there is no special exception for special snowflakes.

        • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

          No, YOU people are blind to the fact that grabbermint is overgrown and is treating us like cattle, changing their rules at every turn and not telling us let alone asking us for permission.

          Why is it that people like you always insist that freemen or simply people that just want to get on with their lives without being harassed at every turn and fleeced for committing victimless crimes, drive around drunk or do dangerous and harmful things against others?

          That’s not how it’s done and, if you tell them not to commit victimless crimes and they’ll be left alone, you’re wrong. They never used to be crimes in the first place. Besides, far more people with licences drive drunk as it is AND beat up the missus.

          When was the last time you were pulled over and financially raped for something you knew was harmless? Speed limits go from 60 to 40 for no apparent reason until you check out the speed traps everywhere. Yeh, there it is.

          There’s a reason police refrain from booking someone that asserts their rights – Look up maxims of law. If you don’t know your rights, you have none.

          Why do you think police always ask if you “understand” and never use the word “comprehend”?

    • Neil T says:

      Mango, just because its not being reported in the mainstream (Daily Mail and other rubbish media) does not mean its not happening…because it is happening and I study it.

    • Omg your the BIGGEST idiot I have ever come across and I’m ashamed to be of the same country as you. NEWS PAPERS LIE. SELL FAKE “accepted” stories and keep the actual news under wraps . You think the government owned daily mail would inform us of stuff that is shunning the government. You FOOOL!

      • Eric Hall says:

        Insults towards the writers or other commenters are normally not allowed, but I want to address your comment with a question:

        What makes you think there is “real” news not being reported? In the modern era of social media and everyone carrying a camera, how would the government “keep it under wraps?” In fact, if the government was so good at faking news, how is it you know its fake? Are you not concerned about government action against you for revealing their evil scheme?

        Please refrain from insulting people in your future comments. Thanks.

        • bob says:

          Asking questions does not make your argument valid. One could ask you the same back: how do you know real news is being reported? how do you know the government isn’t keeping it under wraps? In fact, if the government was good at faking news then you wouldn’t know it was fake. Are you not concerned that all of these questions are right back at you?

          Now go find a real argument and come back with a reply.

  5. mgm75 says:

    I am also from England and not come across this at all. Mango is right, The Daily Moan would repeat it as often as their cancer scare stories if this was an issue.

    • Timhole says:

      I don’t think using the Daily Mail (as outspoken as it is) as a yard stick for what’s happening in the real world is helpful. On the one hand, you’re implying that the DM is full of nonsense, and on the other, you’re saying they would report on it if it were actually happening.

  6. Anonymous says:

    this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ideology. why is it a post on skeptoid?

    • What do podcasts about the Denver Airport, FEMA camps or urban legends have to do with science? Whether it’s pseudoscience, pseudolaw or pseudohistory, crap is crap.

      • kelsey says:


        • Jon Richfield says:

          Hey kelsey (I love the humility of that lower case, BTW kelsey baby; did you create it yourself?) I wouldn’t put up with this dissing if I were you; who does this guy think he is dealing with? A little yellow rube from the dust pan or a deadbeat from an alley? Tell him, TELL him! What gave him that idea? You know what you should do? Put this guy in his place. Terrify him. Shake him up. Tell you what — SHOUT at him! Tell him what he is and what he probably will be. Crush him with orthography! And don’t be so gentle with your punctuation, no one will care if you kill him with solidi or ellipses!!! Challenge him to meet you on Larry King Live! And don’t let him off the hook while he is filling his pants: FINISH him off by shouting in bold italics; use Haettenschweiler billboard script and purple on yellow. And add a few emoticons! That should teach him not to mess with kelsey!

    • Jon Richfield says:

      It is not just ideology, but also rationality and integrity at stake. Science is not the entire purview of scepticism.

  7. Clare Emmett says:

    Come on, dude — since when does the Daily Fail have a clue what’s going on?

    The UK version of the freeman-of-the-land movement only makes it into the papers if it’s a slow news week, largely because it’s all very boring. They’re mostly nonviolent (in contrast to their counterparts elsewhere) and cases tend to be tedious stuff — all unpaid council tax bills and TV licenses. Rest assured, though, it’s happening here too. Here’s a piece from 2011:

  8. Walter Clark says:

    Aren’t you straying from the subject of pseudo-science, or am I on the wrong blog? The implication in your article is that the state is not only sovereign but somehow scientific and true; that fringe (unfamiliar) organizations threaten that order. I’m one of many in your audience who believe that all that’s good about society was and is self-organizing. That the monopoly on legal coercive force –the state– is parasitic, deriving its energy from a primitive, religion-like need, for a master; a god on earth. That it is the state that is pseudo-science. I too have never heard of Freedom On the Land, but welcome any new anti-government movement no matter how nut-ball. It may be that it derives its energy from irrational ideas, but if those ideas are not backed up by tax based threat of force, it will merely be a club.
    Let the statist/libertarian arguments begin:

    • FOTL is not merely anti-government, it’s anti-law and anti-contract. It’s made up of people who think the rules don’t apply to them, and use quasi-legal mumbo jumbo to make their case. If you were renting an apartment to someone who suddenly decided that they were a freeman on the land and didn’t owe you a dime because their “flesh and blood persona” didn’t consent to signing a rental agreement, would you feel the same way?

      • Anon says:

        Mike, that’s such a moot argument. You can’t violate other people! There needs to be someone being harmed in your action. SOMEONE, not a statute. Please, when you write, do it in an informed matter.

        • Most FOTL claims have involved either traffic disputes or failure to honor signed contracts. Both of these things have the potential to cause real harm to real people, not just governments or statutes.

          • bob says:

            How scientific is your claim of “Most”. Come one man you can do better than that. What you could talk about is the fact that there are many people who claim to have the freeman down pat who are just peddling bullshit.. then there are some real people, with real arguments which work. I don’t see any reference to those people in your article nor to their method of dealings with the systems of law. All you have is the tripe, which if you google on the internet is very easy to find, and not very clever. Go do some research on trusts and how they work, the presumption of law etc.

          • What people have “arguments that work?” I’ve never heard of a FOTL having any success arguing their case. Trust me, I looked for them.

          • non negotiable without recourse says:

            lets shut this MIKe boy down ,Mike I am man ,No one owns me so ,NO one can rule me lawfully and if not lawfully its not legal Void ab initio ,Ultra vires ,a human right violation to start .You could never realize this when you are still someones bitch ,its your submissive nature lets juts say its the ” michelle”in you Mike .attempts to use your linear script to represent others Authority to report upon their interested without be qualified by any trade commission and or without consent or delegation of those free and original ,is not going to stop the quasi operators from succeeding

          • Bred says:

            What a bunch of losers these FOTL people are. Perhaps, as the USA is a large country, you could set aside an area for them to live in. We’d all see how long these parasites would last with no host.

            The belief that by writing and speaking gibberish, you can defeat all logic, and thus evade legal consequences of illegal acts, is ludicrous. It’s just an excuse for immoral and illegal behaviour, and as I’ve already alluded to, parasitism.

            GREEN PEN wRiting Parasites not cognisant of langaAGE logic reason ab initio. Maide catchimus est.

            Ignoramus est. Mastibatoramus est.

      • You are confusing dissimilar “movements”, one of which is out for financial gain and is both illegal and unlawful, and the other, which is not focused on financial gain, but on restoration of personal sovereignty which has been co-opted by deceptive government practices.

      • ian says:

        Back again…The contract was made at birth with all of us,now here is my point…nobody under the age of 18 can make a legal contract…with a very few exceptions,food,lodging and medical insurance being most of those.
        Please tell me i am wrong and for once…back it up with verifiable facts.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          There are verifiable facts here and elsewhere. You can’t prove a negative. You need to come up with some facts. Who made the contract? What does the contract state? Where can both parties review the terms of the contract? How does the agreement work? These are all outstanding questions never answered by this nonsense.

  9. Justin Nnoix says:

    this is a hit piece that ignores the people who are doing good, who are not driving like assholes, the people who simply wish to be left alone to live a life of not harming people until the day they can finally die because suicide is illegal. this ignores the people who don’t fall for the legal mumbo jumbo jargon bs, but are still FULLY aware of their rights and how to exercise them when police are involved. this does not mean flooding the courts with papers, merely using the right paper(which i admit, most ‘freemen’ wouldn’t even know where to begin.) but this is not the point. we all have a right to a political opinion and because i’m a worthless cripple with absolutely no money or earning potential, i don’t have the right to leave, i don’t have the right to kill myself, i have to stay here and be told my medication is illegal until someone signs a piece of paper. and then when i get that paper signed, because i’m a worthless cripple, i can’t afford my medication, but it’s still illegal to kill myself because of my social contract.

    • Jon Richfield says:

      Justin, I reckon that the reason the article ignores the good-faith members of the community, the victims of exceptional circumstances and bad law, and the harmless eccentrics, is because they are not the problem at issue.
      That the legal system is fraught with nonsense, bad faith, and bad judgement, is common cause, I hope, but the alternative to generally reasonable and established law usually is worse.
      Should you require say, suicide (which I hope is not the case) then there are alternatives though I grant that they require more ingenuity or technical knowledge than the expedients that reasonable law would permit, and the alternatives often are not accessible to severely incapacitated people.
      But those are not the issues that the article addresses. It can’t cover everything, any more than your plaint covered everything.

    • Rob Struble says:

      “this is a hit piece”

      Yet entirely factual….

      “that ignores the people who are doing good, who are not driving like assholes, the people who simply wish to be left alone to live a life of not harming people until the day they can finally die because suicide is illegal.”


      “this ignores the people who don’t fall for the legal mumbo jumbo jargon bs, but are still FULLY aware of their rights and how to exercise them when police are involved. this does not mean flooding the courts with papers, merely using the right paper(which i admit, most ‘freemen’ wouldn’t even know where to begin.)”

      Complete side tangent, unrelated to the topic.

      “but this is not the point. we all have a right to a political opinion”

      It’s a (false) legal opinion, not a political one.

      “and because i’m a worthless cripple with absolutely no money or earning potential, i don’t have the right to leave, i don’t have the right to kill myself, i have to stay here and be told my medication is illegal until someone signs a piece of paper. and then when i get that paper signed, because i’m a worthless cripple, i can’t afford my medication, but it’s still illegal to kill myself because of my social contract.”

      Complete side tangent, unrelated to the topic.

  10. This was a fascinating article! Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Mike. I also have to say how happy I am to see that, at least THIS phenomenon, cannot be blamed on Americans. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, once it reaches our shores…and whether people retroactively blame us for it, despite the evidence presented here.

    • Thanks, Sheldon! I was honestly surprised at how little FOTL has been used in the US so far. I’m sure it’s coming, though.

      • camazotz says:

        Mike I’d be really interested in a follow-up piece to this, especially one which focuses on the psychology behind movements like this (although that might be outside the scope of Skeptoid). As much as these people want to espouse that they are advocating for some ancient, secret knowledge of a “true legal freeman” status buried by centuries of law, the truth is that these appear to be people who have a variety of reasons….from educational issues to mental health problems to very interesting and weird senses of self, that requires them to seek out some way to legally define themselves as “different” from everyone else. My suspicion is that if tomorrow literally everyone adopted the freeman attitude, they would be ultimately compelled as a movement to find some way to conspiratorially define a new legal mechanism to imagine themselves as special, distinct, and most importantly. superior to the rest of the population.

  11. Jeff Grigg says:

    Suppose we accept, for the sake of argument, all their claims. Then given the example that starts in the first sentence of this article, such “free men” need to avoid using all roads until they come to a satisfactory agreement with the government “corporations” (which they recognize) which have built and are maintaining said roads.

    And that’s just step one. 😉

    • Anonymous says:

      Hey WHO PAID FOR THE ROADs????!!!! THE TAXPAYER YOU SQUIB!!!!Since we paid for it!!!!Doesnt that mean in plain english and in legalise that WE OWN IT!!!! bUT THIS ARGUMENT ALSO MAKES any and all TAXPAYER A PARTY TO THE IRAQ AND Afganistan wars of conquest and ALL THE BLOOD DEATH MURDER AND BLOOD MONEY MADE THEREOF!!! Think about THAT !!”for arguments sake”

    • kelsey says:

      this guy needa glasses tyhis movement is been ongoing google dean clifford or paul bernardo or jordan maxwell or benjarmin stewart or a doc called ungrip all the proof you need

    • Yet the common law recognizes the right of the free man to travel on the common way. Here on the other side of the pond, where our gasoline taxes pay for road upkeep, our Supreme Court has confirmed that right to travel (not to do commerce) in many of its decisions. However old some of them are, they still represent the law of our land.

  12. Jon Richfield says:

    Not only is scepticism not only about science and pseudoscience, but the very boundaries of those topics are very, very fuzzy.
    No point being too picky.

  13. You forgot to mention their green-ink fetish. Apparently they have managed to convince themselves that all legal documents must be made out in green ink to have any effect.

    • Yes, the green ink. Signifying “the land.” That’s the thing with crackpot nonsense like FOTL, it’s easy to make up details since none of it actually has any meaning. So there ends up being far too much minutiae for a short-ish Skeptoid piece. I didn’t even get into all the nautical/admiralty law nonsense they believe in. “Berth” certificate and all that.

      • Rob Struble says:

        IIRC, they also have a bizarre idea if you can quote some obscure index number found on your electric bill – you don’t have to pay the invoice.

      • jim kopecky says:

        Well I am living proof I have 43 cases with no victim only the state claiming to be a victim. We have won every single case. You have been misinformed. Common law in the USA has helped take the corruption out of the courts. Now what do you have to say? It is the real law so much in fact that a common law grand jury is now in the county court house. I think you need to rethink your opinion. The FBI is even supporting this. You are misinformed.

  14. sin says:

    FOTL movements arguments may be flawed and inconsistent (as they attempt to argue in the state paradigm) but that doesn’t some how give credence to the legitimacy claims made by the state. They’re clearly irrational and really just ex post facto justifications for the state’s propensity to use coercion and violence against those it claims to protects.

    • Walter Clark says:

      Well put Mr. Sin.
      Did you see similar thoughts about 11 comments above this one.

    • Rob Struble says:

      ^ sophomoric assertion of fact. No different than when children complain they have to clean their rooms or they will be grounded.

      • Revan says:

        Yes, except the parents(gov) don’t own the house tells everyone they do, tells you to pay rent(without contract) and threatens that if you don’t you will be locked in a rabid dog house where you also have to pay rent.

  15. ApbaEddie says:

    Good article, Mike. I wonder if FOTL members decline to use their government created rights when someone wrongs THEM.

    • Walter Clark says:

      ApbaEddie made the best short point of the entire comment section. The obvious stupidity of the FOTL shows that they cannot possibly be taken seriously and the only reason they take themselves seriously is the attention they attract. I therefore take back my praise of Rothschild’s article. It provides attention to them which is the ONLY reason they exist. Your article, Mike should not be sponsored by Skeptoid. It is yellow journalism and I will approach any article you write in the future with extreme prejudice.

    • “government created rights”, hmmm? Well, I am honestly unfamiliar with the UK’s governmental system. It fell into obscurity when we left it. But I am very familiar with the American system, and those government created rights you spout on about? We call them privileges. “Rights” we reserve for those imputed to us by virtue of our birth, by God himself (if you choose to believe that), but certainly not by government.

  16. Graham says:

    I’ve seen it turn up in Australia from time to time. One ‘Friend of Palestine’ made the mistake of telling a Jew, he’d be happy to help finish what Hitler started (eg the Holocaust) in the presence of witnesses and found himself in court faced with breaching the Racial Descrimination act and in short order denied the authority of the Judge and tried to empanel the jury to try the Judge for treason. He was convicted not only of the original charge, but multiple counts of Contempt of Court.

    The reality TV series ‘Highway Patrol’ has featured people using FOTL tactics against police and it gets them nowhere.

    • Jon Richfield says:

      Heyyyy! I don’t know the opposite of contempt of court, but I reckon I LIKE THAT JUDGE!

      • Jeff Grigg says:

        Hey John, I accuse you of respecting the court!!!

        And as the “Impassioned Idiot Pointlessly Consuming Air and Space,” I’m empaneling a jury of local cats (^-^) to try you for supporting the treasonous conspiracy described above!

        (Now where did I put my green ink and postage stamps… 😉 )

        • Marco Polo-mint iii says:

          Have you ever read any of the works of Frederic Bastiat? If not then May be you should. The Free-man movement is not about abusing others rights or changing your alleged rights, or writing in green ink. I can honestly say being one of those people who contracted with my local council in a private capacity have not paid council tax here in the UK for 5 years, perhaps that is not a success in your eyes but for me had I not questioned the legality and morality of it’s imposition I would be £7000 worse for wear. And before you quote others pay for me, well they have the same right of action and they choose not to look beyond their noses and lodge their claim. It is all about choice and I choose not to pay.

    • Fritz says:

      Well I don’t agree with what he said, it’s despicable, but I also don’t think that it’s the proper role of government to impose laws regulating what sort of speech is acceptable. It’s idiotic hate speech laws like that that give the F.O.T.L movements some appeal, in part because they are often one sided. For example if you are a radical Muslim cleric and deliver a tirade declaring “Death To Israel” or “Death to the Jews” that’s O.K, but not if you are a white supremacist bigot.
      When you think of how many real crimes have to make their ways through the courts someone hurting someones else’s feelings by calling them a bad name should be near the bottom of the pile. Free speech, even if it is deplorable and bigoted, is essential in a free and democratic society to ensure scrutiny, accountability and the free exchange of ideas. Otherwise we might as well live in Iran or Communist China, where the theocracy, party, or other self declared elite is always above question.
      In truth my issue with the Freemen on the Land is much as is cited in this blog, they are not so much libertarian or anarchist as scofflaws. Resisting confiscatory taxation is perfectly understandable, as is resisting the ever growing surveillance state, commandeering someone else’s property for their own enjoyment is just plain theft.

      • Jon Richfield says:

        Can’t really fault that…
        There also are some other considerations of course, like working out the morals of stirring up hornets’ nests by telling the truth (or at least reason or alternative views) either to violent bigots, or to just plain rabble (“soaring swine” as Bierce put it) with a taste for violence and self-righteous malice. As Russell put it: “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists”.
        Of course, pandering to such people also is self-destructive nurturing of eventually intolerable abuses, but it is convenient for the moment and keeps politicians smugly and self-righteously in office, So who are we to complain?
        We have had a lot of that sort of thing in various forms lately I think.

  17. Anonymous says:

    There is proof that certain freeman have been able to avoid statutes, how can you state that every case has failed?

    • Jon Richfield says:

      Well Ann, don’t leave us in suspense, show us some of your proof and blow the whole topic away!

    • Jeff Grigg says:

      It is nearly impossible to prove that something has never happened. But I would think that if any freeman was successful in court, they’d let people know. It would certainly be in the interest of those selling the materials to publish examples of any such successes.

      The best I’ve been able to find in the FOTL blogs is that some people have successfully ignored written demands that they pay fines, and that some people have been let go after a mildly annoying and tedious encounter with the police.

      [Remember: For minor matters, the police are often quite happy to file a warrant for your arrest and then just wait for you to happen to cross their path. They’ve got better things to do with their time than to track down every petty criminal. But if you “come to their attention” for something else, they can easily find and use any outstanding warrants. So don’t think that “They haven’t done anything to me yet.” is really proof of anything.]

  18. Anonymous says:

    I know for a fact the freeman on the land works to some extent. I sit next to this guy in an automotive class and so far he has had to go to court for two separate traffic violations during our course and had beaten both cases, and not just because the officer didn’t show up. He showed me the legal documents he filled under common law and all the freeman stuff. First appearance he was going to plead under some common law and the judge told him he is pleading not guilty. Well he then tried to ask the judge “with all due respect how are you going to make my plea for me? I am pleading such and such under common law.” and the judge had him escorted out of the court and a new court date was made. He went back to court, it was actually yesterday, and the case was dropped due to lack of evidence. From what he told me from the first court date it went pretty much the same and he got his information from a guy that has gotten out of 6 ticket. The real info you can find by googling Dean Clifford freeman on the land. And the people I know that used it are not nut cases or violent people or even people trying to weasel their way out of tickets. If any of you really sat down and thought of who is benefiting from you paying tickets and fines and who’s is actually in the court room against you, it would seem to be you are getting trapped in a no win situation. Anyways, you can also think of all the bad publicity that the government is trying to put out there and paint these picture of insane violent people that know nothing and never win any of there court cases when in fact they do. They just don’t want you to know about it. And maybe some people shouldn’t.

    • You mean the Dean Clifford who was arrested last month? Not the guy I want as my guru.

      Do you have any evidence that this guy isn’t just BS’ing you? I haven’t seen any case where any FOTL tactic has worked. If someone gets their charges dropped because of lack of evidence, that’s a far cry from spewing a bunch of nonsense about admiralty law and being handed a check. Witnesses not appearing is pretty common, especially with things like minor traffic tickets.

      • Can you say corruption? If the judges, police, government are all corrupt, how do you get a ‘fair’ trial? You should stay sleeping.. it’s safer. You can’t compete with Admiralty law. It’s the law of the sea. Those laws don’t apply to live breathing beings. In their laws, you are just cargo..

  19. Anonymous says:

    Its about knowing what do do say and in what situation. i am not a FOTL but i have studied this. Im also in England and i have seen this in action. It appears to work. It will become an issue if the monetary system doesn’t change, bankers getting richer and richer whilst we get poorer and poorer. there was an episode of a show like traffic cops on tv and I saw a guy putting this theory to action, everyone thought he was mad but I knew what he was doing. he failed to provide a breath sample and threatened an hourly rate of £2000 and also at the police station. however he still was released without charge, hmmmm wonder why. Before people start going into the morals of it as I do not condone any form of drink driving, morals went out the window as soon as your mother and father registered your birth. if you dig deep and research the subject you will find stuff out. the public are just too blind to see it and are very narrow minded

    • Brian Smyth says:

      “i am not a FOTL”
      “i have seen this in action. It appears to work”

      Absolute nonsense. I’ve recently found out in real life that an idiot-of-a-friend was driving around without insurance (cool disregard for other users), no emissions tax, suspended license and surprise, a police officer pulled him over.

      He tried the ‘right to travel’ hogwash, the constable told him to start walking. He kept saying he didn’t consent to anything, was belligerent, rolled up the window to avoid being arrested when the officer told him to get out of the car. After several warnings the officer used a baton on his window, he claimed the arrest was assault and so kicked the officer away.

      I’m not sure why he would stupidly escalate a situation like that- Did he not see how he might be at fault?

      Anyway, the officer maced him and he ended up being arrested and the car impounded.
      He also faced a contempt of court charge in addition to the charges of assaulting a constable, no insurance, tax, etc.

      He can’t claim the car without insurance, proof of ownership, road tax, mot, and doesn’t want to register it in his name because he would have to “enter a contract” which would nullify his ‘free’ status. Now he’s ringing me asking me to buy the car from him for 1 quid ‘on paper’ so I can be the one to get his lancer out from the impound lot.

      I told him no. I don’t want him to end up trying to use my registration details because he doesn’t want to register anything in his name.

      He needs to be responsible for his own decisions- If you end up getting pulled in by this freeman cult you are crossing a dangerous line and you’ll end up facing real trouble.

      • Thomas says:

        In 2011 while researching law’s online to combat a neighbour who had not honoured building a fence agreement. I stumbled onto FOTL I began to believe it, I was totally in shock and when telling another neighbour “did you know we are all slaves?” his reply was “Yes didn’t you know? I have known it for years and there are extermination chambers being built all over the world”

        Which sent me into further shock.
        I began telling everyone,My mother,my friends and anyone I thought I could save by revealing the “truth”.Being adopted at birth my mother confirmed my adoption papers and name were in CAPITAL LETTERS (which is different to my actual birth name) and my actual adoption legally didn’t occur until 6 moths after my birth.
        By then I was almost frantic,living on acres in the country, I began building a wall around the house,constructed a full size effigy of myself and crucified “my stawman” on a hill so I could take on my Soverienty and be “free”.

        My friends family and other neighbours were on the verge of having me committed.
        I was just about to take the number plates off “my carriage” and “travel” canceling my rego and insurance.
        when I did further research I found a video on Youtube of two guys “traveling” with no number plate, when pulled over by a cop they gave him the usual FOTL mumbo and gave him their “affidavit of truth”to read.
        They then shot the officer dead!

        This woke me up to the insanity of this cult!
        There is nothing more delusional and stupid than driving with no number plate and no rego or insurance on a public road!
        Not only are you an idiot but a danger to others,if you have an accident you are not covered and anyone you injure isn’t covered.If you have assets the court will take them to pay for damages and to take care of the injured.
        If you have no assets then you will have to live with that person not being covered for damages or injury.
        How is that being a responsible Sovereign human being with a soul ?

        Recently a young lady barely aged 21 drove form Parkes to Sydney Australia with no plates.She was pulled over by the police and spouted FOTL woo which didn’t work.
        It is very scary that these nutcases are on PUBLIC roads!

  20. It’s not about ‘whether it works.’ If you look up Edward Mandel House Strawman 1913-21 you will see this has been planned for decades. At least 3 generations have been ‘brainwashed’ to ‘believe’ we are a LEGAL entity. We are NOT. After the countries (all corporations) went bankrupt, the de facto government was formed.

    If you search Freeman Strawman explained on youtube, it will give you a better understanding of what House was talking about. Another good source that will help you to understand that YOU OWN NOTHING is

    Marcus (who is Canadian) created the videos to explain the above. He tore the bible apart and deciphered it into words you can understand.. He found out the ‘hard’ way about how he/we became enslaved.
    Whether it works? We have all been brainwashed. There was an KGB member who explains that his entire job was to ‘brainwash’ an entire generation.. it worked. He defected to the USA and died in 1993 in Windsor Ontario. He made many videos about ‘how’ and ‘why’ they did it to wake up the sleeping brainwashed public. We are running out of time folks.
    They (the bankers) are following the Iron Mountain documents to a tea. Agenda 21 is nearly complete. Once they destroy the USA and take the weapons, they will be ready for their One World Order = United Nations.

    Once they achieve this, there will be no more sovereignty or rights. In otherwards, it will be too late to ‘wake up.’

    They have an agenda to depopulate more than 80+ of the world’s population and have been by using fluoride, GMO’s, chemtrails and vaccines. The media in the west is owned by 5 very rich people and only ‘report’ what they want you to know.

    If you don’t believe, then fine. If you have children / grandchildren, then please, for THEIR future, watch the Iron Mountain video on youtube. It will explain their agenda.
    You need to wake up. As far as it ‘working’, you ARE FREE, you just don’t know it. Once you understand the agenda, you will never go back.
    I’m not a freeman on the land per-say, but I DO know their plans and make them known.

    Another plan they have, and it happened in the last week, was to put chemicals in the drinking water (in Virginia I believe it was). Fema and the National Guard have been called in to help. They will more than likely be ‘forcing’ people to relocate to the city if they live outside. This will help them ‘control’ 9 counties. That’s what they will ‘report.’ This, like 9/11, Colorado Theater, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing were all preplanned to make the masses ‘need’ the government out of FEAR. It worked. They performed Martial Law in Boston and the public (like good sheep) cheered on the fact that they were taken out of their homes by swat teams… all in the search for one boy.

    Free men on the land are ‘only’ those who KNOW what’s going on. Some have de-registered their government ID and live by the laws of the land and not of the sea. All courts are Admiralty Law. The latin meaning of bench is bank. Does that help?
    Take care and good luck..

    • Dave says:

      You said: “The latin meaning of bench is bank”

      I love this argument; it’s a perfect example of how these people claim to have done their research and that “they know” the truth:

      First, “bench” is of Germanic origin, not Latin–but that’s a forgivable mistake. Second, and more damning of the stupidity of the movement, “bench” does indeed come from the Germanic word for “bank”–as in “the bank of the river”; it has no etymological connection to “financial institution”.

      FMOTL can’t even decipher a dictionary of English, why do they think they can navigate legal documents? Most of these people just go off of what they’ve been told by others and then call it “research”, without ever having checked with an actual authority–like a simple dictionary.

      • Jim says:

        Thanks for the definition of bench. It makes more sense now, the judge sits on the bank, behind the bar of the sea and or river and presides over maritime law contracts, on the passing corporate vessels in commerce.

      • Mark Gambera says:

        Dave, both parties are only confirming how stupid, CRAZY & benighted the other party is. I am sympathetic to what you deem reason. This is the sequel to Idiocracy whether Mike judge wants it to be or not…

    • Mark Gambera says:

      “All that we got here is american made, it’s a little bit cheesy but it’s nicely displayed”

  21. A napolitano says:

    FMOTL is about PEACE AND PROSPERITY NOT DRIVING LIKE A FOOL!! iT IS ABOUT the RIGHT to think for yourself.TO NOT have the state ( whIch thinks it ownS YOU!!! AndTHINKS IT CAN decide and give you yourOWN opinion)! IE I have the god given right to fish and therefore to feed myself.I DON’T NOR will I EVER need to ask the state for permission ,through the contract of a state issued ‘fishing license’ for the RIGHT ,not the privilege of fishing.

    • Jon Richfield says:

      Listen up guy; you make it painfully, embarrassingly, obvious that you could not even meaningfully, relevantly, or functionally, let alone cogently, define or describe a right or predict its consequential or material significance. By way of demonstration, show us how you would go about exercising your right to do your on-line shouting on my screen in green or purple ink.
      So much for your thinking at all, much less thinking for yourself, which patently would be beyond you, as you haven’t shown the slightest capacity even for for second-hand thought so far.
      As for your god given right to fish or feed yourself, your type could no more than demonstrate the god-given privilege of the incompetent to starve if you don’t first go overboard to feed the fishes in your turn… (siiiiigh…! Never miiind…)
      There folks, assuming that anyone with residual sanity still is hanging in here! How was THAT for sustaining the tone of the thread? 🙂

      • Simon says:

        Gosh aren’t you a clever one Jon. Do you really think that arguments are won by making personal attacks on people in overblown, adjective riddled tirades that say nothing about any of the points mentioned. And on top of it you arrogantly think you that you dealt with the argument and show the insecurity in having to ask others for confirmation of the ‘fact’. I’m not sure about ‘sustaining the tone of the thread’ but you sure have sustained the tone of the article. And no that wasn’t a compliment. The article is as shallow as your comment.

  22. Anonymous says:

    BTY Im in America NOT the UNITED STATES( a registered tradmark corporation of the crown corporation). and FMOTL WILL catch on here!! I say google Edward mandell house and his connection to the federal Reserve and the REALITY of money, its creation, its purpose and maybe you’ll see the deception.Untill then your speaking FROM IGNORANCE!!

  23. Joe Caringi says:

    Lawyers in the US and attorneys have to pass the BAR. British Admiralty Registration. If you don’t cross the gate into the court area, considered the ship on the sea, they can’t claim jurisdiction. These courts are nothing but fleecing posts to scam money from the natural persons to pay for the bankruptcy of 1933. The money goes to the international bank-sters.

    • Wait, so you’re saying lawyers turn over their fees to international banks?

    • Dave says:

      You said: “Lawyers in the US and attorneys have to pass the BAR. British Admiralty Registration.”

      No. “Bar”, in this sense, originates from the railing that separated students (and others) from the hall in the Inns of Court. This is why law students are “called to the bar”. It is literally an extension of the usual vulgar definition of “bar”, i.e. a rod, railing, et cetera.

  24. kelsey says:

    dean clifford has been released everytime they try to screw with him and arrest him. he spent 30 days in jail and was released all charges droppedlisten to some of his lectures, and you will see he is the real deal just a contractor from manitoba, good luck debunking factual court proceedings on camera where freeman owns courts. UNTILL YOU STEP UP AND WATCH the youtube clips and listen to Dean clifford all theese are not from lack of evidence anf usually the crown and judges arent prepared for having their laws and legalities used against them , winningly

  25. john says:

    small minds.investigate information then go off at a tree who’s built to ground you.the sky sees everything so i will look up. i was born free and will live free.i am not above the law.that is bad press. freeman on the land is about the laws of(on) the land and not admiralty (sea)law. Our beautiful land doctrines(laws) have been ‘captured’ so subtle,unnoticed by small minds fighting over tid bits of lies(facts) fed to them by same pirate thieves(fill in the name of what or whoever you wish to call it). get free. get a Blacks Law Dictionary (6th edition or older) the last three editions have been revised because of this some what new awareness.If freemen are not on to something lawful and true? why have definitions been cut and altered in recent editions? Use your brain your heart and wallet will appreciate it… Not to mention the children you will leave this mess to.clean up your mess. United we(the people)stand divided we fall. Blessings to All

  26. Kieran says:

    Mike, I am Kieran John Freemanontheland.

    Thanks for using my affidavit in your article.

    Your whole premise of starting the article with several blatant and dangerous disregards of people’s safety, ie running red lights, speeding and generally acting in disregard for human life sadly is evidence of your naive views on this topic.

    Not all Freemenontheland use the term “I do not understand your statement” nor do i muck around with the concepts of capital letters versus lower case etc,etc,etc

    I am polite when dealing with authorities and have learned to respect those peoplw orking for government agencies.

    Please do your homework properly Mike before forming your opinions.
    You could have contacted me via wordpress for my views on your criticisms but instead you choose to use the heading only of my affidavit and discredit every single person who is reclaiming their sovereign status.
    Thank you though for acknowledging the source of the full document which can be found at

    We are not born into slavery by birth Mike, we are born of the soil, air and water, not by a government corporation nor are we bound to be governed by any ‘rulers of the land’.
    Those days are long over, even if many people are yet to see through the illusions of control that the government relies upon for their governance.

    There is no pretense that i may live with reckless abandon just because I have reclaimed my status as a sovereign citizen.

    In fact if you bother to read my affidavit it clearly stats that I am bound by the laws of Love and Peace and theres nothing peaceful or loving about blatantly disregarding laws that are in place to protect other beings. if i should breach my own affidavit or act outside of love or peace then i lose my freemanontheland status. this is a responsible stance not an irresponsible one.

    You conveniently mix facts with much fantasy in your article to attempt to discredit the freeman status carte blanche, an approach which is typical of irresponsible ‘journalism’.

    Whilst I cannot speak for all freemenontheland and whilst i do not agree with all of the precepts thrown around about the freemanontheland status, in my case its not that i use my freeman status to avoid paying rent or other living expenses.
    I do live on a 55 acre block of land on a mountain with a 150 yr old house on it that hadn’t been lived in for over 50 years before i arrived there. The property is 12km from the nearest town by a dirt road and my mode of transport is a mountain pushbike that i was given by someone who no longer wanted it.

    I have been renovating the house and building a garden since I arrived over a year ago.

    Before you assume that I’m squatting in someone elses property… please note that in fact an associate of mine who I was introduced to by a friend became curious about the process i went through by serving the affidavit on the NZ government reclaiming my sovereignty.

    He has been witness to much blatant abuse and misuse of public property and finance by officers in government and associated businesses and understands and supports my efforts (and vision to create a community garden) so much that he offered me the property which he owns as a ‘hobby farmlet’ and he lets me live here rent free. He lives in the nearest town but not on the property Im residing at.

    So far I have created a decent sized garden to eat from and am planning on constructing another half acre community garden based on sacred geometric designs including the flower of life, tree of life and the human chakras amongst other things. The garden will have water features, aeolian harp (plays in the wind) , wind chimes, a pathway of virtues, fish ponds, geodesic dome, pyramid frame amongst many other features with every part of the garden designed based on sacred geometric designs.

    This project is being undertaken for the local community to eventually enjoy, providing, sights, sounds, scents, colours, birdlife and more in a restful mountainside environment for the purposes of ‘Sursum Corda’ (lifting hearts)
    and to eat from. This is a no money venture so it will be freely available for the local community to visit, enjoy, and eat from, a haven away from the ‘ratrace’.

    Also am learning to master the art of tibetan singing bowl playing (been playing them for several years now and have a good bowl collection) to provide tibetan healing bowl therapy to whomever feels the need. This free service offered at no cost nor any obligation is simply offered out of Love and the feedback so far from the few people I have shared this service with has been beyond my expectations.

    Hopefully you too can share how your life purpose will lift hearts Mike?

    P.S. Please read the entire document i have furnished to the NZ government back in 2011 when I formerly reclaimed my sovereignty.

    Some advice for you Mike before you start pointing fingers and theorising on all and sundry… ‘Gnothi Seauton’

    Also Mike fyi you may be unaware Gibberish is exactly what the legal fraternity rely upon to ply their trade.
    as per Wikipedia
    “Gibberish or gobbledygook refer to speech or other use of language that is nonsense, or that appears to be nonsense. It may include speech [1] or forms such as language games or highly specialized jargon that seems non-sensical to outsiders.

    • befuddled says:

      Nice (sic)

    • PJ Ellis says:

      Mr Kieran Truss aka Kieran John Freemanoftheland

      Every time I read about a FOTL or SovCit, I have found 2 consistencies with all of them.

      1) They are someone who’s had tremendous negative prior experience with the courts. Be it bankruptcy, criminal, family or otherwise.

      2) They tried and failed at getting “rich” so they turn their attacks against those who are financially wealthy along with the government.

      I guess your “get rich quick” book scheme didn’t work out so well.

      You rely on a good-hearted person to “allow” you to live there rent free. That’s NOT how the real world works sir. In fact, prior to paper currency, people had some form of commodity in order to trade for goods or services.

      You can continue to play a Buddhist monk in the mountains and believe you are living a free life. Cleary for now it’s working for you to slum off the hearts of others kindness but at some point you are going to have to do something tangible to earn a living.

      For those who actually believe the laws of the land do not apply to them in some form or another should leave the country they continue to reside in.

  27. Sue N says:

    Kieran, That word document that that you sent to your government, well did it work? Anybody can submit anything to a court, it doesn’t mean it has to be honored. At least in the U.S, I haven’t read all these posts,i don’t have time and I pretty much get the drift. It strikes me a lot of you are in the UK. I think that in the U.S, most people think all this freeman stuff is fringe, annoying or just downright stupid. Once in awhile it’ll be in the press or newscast, but basically no one really pays any attention to it. So, well, good luck to you in the UK. Here in the US it won’t work, it hasn’t worked, it will never work. I think any passing thought would be that these freeman people don’t get violent like shooting someone on their “sovereign land”, or having a stand off with government agents, like has happened with a lot of government conspiracy types.

    • Jim says:

      hi sue I am from canada and follow this movement, quite a bit and there are a lot of success stories from the US look up Mark Stevens from Arizona, or freedom from government, tons of info in states.

  28. Simon says:

    You might not be from ‘the’ Rothschilds – but you sure sound like one. Have a problem with freedom do you? Your facts are way off and to a person of intelligence, your article is pure propaganda. Nice one Mikey – I know now to avoid the other purile vomit you must have written.

    • I have no problem with freedom. Freedom is great. I have a big problem with people who think the rules don’t apply to them and make up ridiculous excuses as to why.

      If the laws of the land bother you, either work to change the laws or find a new land.

      • Simon says:

        The whole stance of the ‘freeman’ is based upon the recognition that most of the so-called ‘laws’ which are not actual ‘laws’ but mere legislation are based upon taking money from you and have nothing to do with benefiting the people nor protecting them. If you had looked into the creation of money and the foundations of this whole ‘society’ you would see a little clearer the motivations of these people. Instead, you like many others, with a highly simplified and incorrect view of how our economies function, judge those who see deeper than you and presume to understand their motivations. You do not understand their motivations because your whole worldview is deficient. Where does money come from Mike? Who creates it? What is it based upon? Do our fines and taxes really pay for roads and schools and hospitals? Corporate income taxes only began in 1909 and income tax in 1913 and yet prior to that there were roads, schools and hospitals. How come? A true ‘freeman’ is someone who is not attempting to shirk responsibility but assume full responsibility for their actions unlike our legal personas who exist under limited liability which allows for untold injustice. You also make the mistake of attempting to lump together a number of individuals who are proclaiming sovereignty as if they all had the same ideas and were part of some big club. Can you not see the error in this? What does ‘sovereign’ mean? It means they stand alone and seek no refuge in groupthink. Why don’t you apply the same standards to your own government? Why don’t the corrupt politicians discredit all of them? I suppose a handful of ‘terrorists’ makes 1.6 billion Muslims all criminals too. The fact of the matter Mike, as you have failed so dismally in penetrating and documenting for your readers, is that the so-called ‘freeman’ position is absolutely real. One can ‘drive’ perfectly lawfully without a licence in a de-registered ‘car’, not pay fines or taxes whilst abiding by the dictates of common law and pay all their ‘debts’ by accessing their government trust account that is based on the bond created by their birth certificate. I know, not through the websites and books that claim to teach you how but through actual experience as I myself have lived this way for almost 7 years. I really don’t expect this to change anything for someone like you. I am a PhD psychologist and I am familiar enough with your current mental condition – you are more concerned at the moment with finding the information that fits into you pre-decided worldview which is based primarily on emotional considerations which is why you feel the need to profess to the world your ‘logical’ stance and your ‘skepticism’. “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” I hope, for your sake, that one day you may outgrow this impoverished psychological worldview which you currently inhabit. You look fairly young so there is hope still. I am mainly writing this for others who may happen to read this and who’s minds are a little more open to the vast potentials that are open to us. The technologies of the ‘freemen’ and the ‘sovereigns’ are real although there has been much nonsense thrown in to keep superficial investigators like yourself from ever discovering the true keys to freedom. I only hope that there are others who will not be fooled by your schoolboy attempts to pull the wool over their eyes.

        • I’m sure you have plenty of examples of people who have successfully driven without a license and accessed their government trust accounts, right?

          • DV82XL says:

            Don’t you know that THEY actively suppress all reports of success by the Green Ink Brigade? This of course includes all court records, as well as all media accounts in a conspiracy so widespread that it encompasses everyone in the government and the legal system from top to bottom including every textbook on law, and every published statute in every Common Law jurisdiction in the world.

            One is left wondering why, given the sort of power that this would imply, just how they have missed closing these loopholes that supposedly exist by legislation and be done with it. Oh I forgot: they have, given that the parts of the Magna Carta and British Admiralty Law these nit-wits hang their reasoning on have long been superseded, and are no longer in effect.

          • Simon says:

            Did I stutter? Did you even read what I wrote before replying? Let me simplify it even further for you Mike. I don’t need ‘plenty of examples’. Why? Because “I myself have lived this way for almost 7 years” like I said before. Just to make it crystal clear to you. I have de-registered my house and ‘car’, returned my driving licence, served the correct paperwork to my ‘authorities’ that exempts me from paying taxes and fines and I can access my exemption account for the offsetting of any debts that need to be discharged. I have also successfully defended myself when the ‘authorities’ have questioned my actions. Now they just leave me alone. And I have lived this way for, like I said before “almost 7 years”. But still for a good old stalwart like yourself this will mean nothing – after all – I’m just an anonymous guy on the internet – that’s no proof! And hey – they still might arrest me yet and lock me up forever! Right? Like I said before Mike in a gentler fashion – you seem to have your head buried deep in the sand of your own ‘convictions’ (just think about that word for a minute or two). But give a chance to those who aren’t quite as lost as yourself – give up the writing until you get some real knowledge – and get back to your day job.

          • DV82XL says:

            Bullshit that is weapons-grade bullshit and you must think us morons to try and float this past us. Either that or you are utterly delusional.

        • befuddled says:


        • befuddled says:

          PhD !

        • Please, by all means, you need to document this method, Simon.

      • james parker says:

        Why should somebody have to leave the land they were born on because they don’t agree with the fascist doctrines they didn’t sign up to? How is that freedom? You are full of shit if you say you support freedom but then say that if someone wont live by a predertermined set of rules then they must leave.

      • six fo says:

        Rothschild has immunity thats why he is so comfort with his gibberish.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          “So comfort”?

          • Simon Edwards says:

            I find this subject highly interesting.
            One thing I have noticed is that when any party related to the government uses this kind of language it is regarded as gospel yet when a citizen uses the same language it is regarded as gibberish

          • Noah Dillon says:

            People often use all sorts of language poorly, especially technical information, including law. Not all lawyers are part of the government, but they do know how law works. The Freemen fundamentally misunderstand law and its history. A lot of regular citizens can see this fact clearly. For instance, I’m not a government official and I can see how bizarrely mistaken these people are about this stuff. One guy, I think in this thread, thought there was some trickery with laws being called “bills,” but anyone can recognize, with just some simple civics (or Saturday morning cartoons like “Schoolhouse Rock!”), that a bill is a proposed law or change to a law. It’s only actually a law if it’s approved and passed by whoever, like the legislature and an executive.

            The point is that you don’t have to take this stuff on faith and its explanations don’t depend on an authority, just someone with some understanding. You can see this in Congress all the time: legislators often misunderstand or misrepresent what is in a bill, and the job of journalists is to report on that, which they do because embarrassing public officials gets readers and viewers. It’s not about anybody being regarded as gospel, it’s about stuff you can look at, that’s on the public record, and if you have some experience and guidance in it, you can check it yourself. The consensus is that the Freemen haven’t done that and you can check their work and figure out how they’re totally nutty and wrong.

          • Simon Edwards says:

            I’m not 100% on the USA side but on the UK front there are certain things to me that raise eyebrows.

            One is the difference between Common law and Statutes and another being the legal definition of PERSON.

            I have seen videos where magistrates have had to abandon the court , my first question would be if this was all gibberish then why would the people using it in court not be arrested for contempt ?

          • Ken S. says:

            Generally because the court tries to assume good faith and ignorance instead of contempt.

          • Simon Edwards says:

            the following video s blatantly not good faith or ignorance , this is the part i don’t understand , if what he is doing is gibberish how was he allowed to get away with it?


          • Ken S. says:

            It’s a pretty unusual situation, so they don’t seem quite sure how to deal with it. The idiot “interpreting” the video has no idea what’s going on, though. They just like inserting their delusions into the scene, no matter what actually happens.

          • Simon Edwards says:

            this is just one example of many , i disagree that they didn’t know what was gong on

          • Ken S. says:

            You can disagree, but you’re wrong. A piece of paper is not a person and statutes are laws. Being disruptive and uncooperative doesn’t mean that you have successfully overthrown the state.

          • Simon Edwards says:

            That wasn’t my argument but now you have brought it up regarding pieces of paper.

            A LTD Company in law is regarded as a person would that make the certificate of incorporation the “physical” Person?

          • Ken S. says:

            Nope. A corporation has no physical form. A piece of paper can be evidence of the existence of a corporation, but it is not a person in itself.

          • Simon Edwards says:

            So what is the actual person ?

          • Ken S. says:

            The “person” is the entity that is treated as a person in law. Company, Inc. is the person. Company, Inc. can own property, enter contracts, sue, be sued, or otherwise interact with the law. The corporation *is* the person, the same way that you are a person.

          • Ken S. says:

            “One thing I have noticed is that when any party related to the government uses this kind of language it is regarded as gospel yet when a citizen uses the same language it is regarded as gibberish”

            The difference is that when judges, lawyers, and prosecutors use this kind of language, they actually know what they’re saying. They know what the definitions of the words and phrases are and how to construct actual, meaningful sentences.

            When pseudolegal conspiracy theorists use this language, they don’t know what they’re saying, and they refuse to believe the actual dictionaries and law. Other people generally don’t use this language, because it’s fairly rare to know how to use it effectively. That’s why smart people rely on lawyers to help them instead of the Internet.

  29. John Doe says:

    Look.. this stuff is easy. Man & woman live common law = no licence required. It is the same with everything = no licence required if you live common law – that is live by the bible and the 10 commandments. Hurt no one, steal from no one. If an accident happens you pay the injured party – no court required. Most of you have been indoctrinated from birth to accept statute law. You don’t have to. You can opt out. Cut up your cards and be free. Cause no harm and don’t steal. Buy gas which includes a heavy road tax and be on your way. You have all been hoodwinked, fooled, lied to and enslaved. Go ahead and pay the crooks at the top if you want to but leave the freeman alone. He knows what he’s doing. You don’t

    • ardvox says:

      It’s easier than that. Gods law is supreme. God gave me 100% ownership/enjoyment of my property (labour/time). The State is Satan.

    • PJ Ellis says:

      It’s hilarious that you use the name John Doe to make a statement. Why not use your real name Rem C Aubin or Remi Aubin? What exactly are you afraid of sir?

      As far as your “man and woman live common law” = no license. They DO still have to pay taxes, mortgages and the rest. You do not get to cherry pick which laws you wish to follow and wish to ignore simply because you believe God is the one and only authority over you. In fact, you cannot cherry pick out of your bible either Mr. Remi Aubin.

      Romans 13:1-7 = we are to submit to civil authority and be carried out as obedience to our Lord, thy God.

      13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God.

  30. jamiedukJay says:

    a simple youtube search reveals in the uk how and that it does in fact work and were all governed by consent and have a right to not consent to be governed if is felt that an act (which isnt a law) is imposed upon us without consent while if a peace officer actually attempts to do any action that is unlawful then they are subject to prosecution, 1 there under oaths, were are not, they have consented in breaking the law, they use words to trick everyone into giving there consent in the 1st place, so there are liable to fraud and treason at the very least for contradicting the fact that we are all governed by consent!

    An Act has the power of the law if you do consent!

  31. Another tool of the system trying to debunk a threat to the system, I’ve seen this work in court many times, stop talking shite

  32. Pol O Se says:

    Freedumb !! You freedumbers should research “AGENCY” and its legal definition !!

  33. yep dude cool says:

    We want a large pizza nothing too crazy but surprise us hope u have a good night thanks

  34. markgiblin says:

    FMOTL pseudo babble has existed in the UK for as long as it has existed in the USA as ideas like this spread fast. I have listened to recordings of a person in Australia who claims to have had his mortgage nullified.

    In the UK it was John Harris and Some St Clair guy who I found information that shows he is a fraudster and also sells fake knighthood titles, real name purported to be Gary Beaver and has appeared on US Conspiracy radio shows as Tim Refat.

    Everything that has been claimed by these guys along with the Lawful Rebellion groups as to be inalienable rights on being governed has no legal basis, no citation in UK law (for example) does not allow you to use the highways of the UK tax free and yes you can deregister your car but that does not mean that you are exempt nor is your property private property and entry is trespass. The only road users to use the roads tax free are pedestrians, cyclists, some mobility scooter classes and horses and carts / caravans.

    Law of the sea on the land… If you speak to the law commission, the people who edit the statute, proposing changes that are needed to bring legislation inline with current advancements in society, etc… They will tell you that Admiralty law as FMOTL refer to it, only extends to the land where businesses on land are businesses at sea and you interact with that business, eg. Sending a shipping container overseas. On land its common law (aka Case law) and administrative laws (acts of parliaments) as well as Natural Law that we are governed by.

    Council Tax bills are not in need of your consent by signing a contract, a bill is a contract and it does not need to have a “wet signature” as FMOTL types refer to signatures, digital and images of signatures are quite legal to use… Also crown debts such as council tax and other revenue streams DO NOT DIE with the individual that created the debt to start with by not paying them, these pass to your relatives if your estate has not enough assets. Yet another pile of FMOTL dung claims that your debt free on death *rolls eyes*

    What amazes me about FMOTL types, you present fact, they deny it, you show the truth and they shun it, simple thing, only one thing that can be done is to let them get on with it and learn the truth the hard way, the old saying about leading a horse to water springs to mind.

  35. bdbinc says:

    He’s a Rothschild . Of course they need to try to stop the slaves from exiting from their ancestor’s (fire of london +admiralty) law. Hes a slaver not a skeptic.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Wow. What a horrible thing to say about someone you don’t know at all—and especially, as I’ve pointed out in this comment section before, since the idea that some family is going to take over the world through blog posts is patently idiotic. Why rule network news and cable television when you can contribute to the Skeptoid blog as an unpaid volunteer? How absolutely nefarious, right? The Rothschilds control a vineyard AND a WordPress account! It’s all FEMA camps after that.

      How hard did you actually think about your claim? And what evidence do you have for it?

      • Vishwambhar says:

        Sorry to hear it but you are mind addled if you believe the Rothschilds family is so poor they can’t fund “control a vineyard AND a wordpress account” or own any media outlet. I suspect its not a case of your total ignorance but one of deliberate spreading lies about the monitory wealth of Rothschilds.

    • Drat. Centuries of global domination undone by one internet comment.

  36. The problem with this whole Freeman movement, is that even if it is conceptually right, it doesn’t matter to the masters. It is exactly like a slave or someone in a concentration camp trying to use legal proceedings against his/her oppressors. They don’t care about your arguments coz they don’t have to. They wield the power, they own your ass and so you have no recourse unless you escape that prison and create/enter another society or get enough other slaves to revolt and tumble the oppressor structure as has been done many times in the past, only to result in a new oppressor structure shortly thereafter…

  37. Stephan Toth says:

    I won’t try to persuade people that successful politicians are inherently corrupt. I would simply ask people to watch this series of 12 videos which will prove it using logical systems analysis. They are also very good videos if anyone really wants to know what is inevitably going to happen to society and this planet. If we do not make drastic and significantly impossible changes to the political systems of every country around the world all other discussions and debates will become moot issues.

  38. Piet van Staden says:

    Instead of shooting these people down, why do you not rather acknowledge that there exists a real sickness in our society perpetrated by our governments, and try suggest alternative ways to remedy the problem.

  39. peter goose mcallister says:

    Its just weird that any sane human being would think that laws and statuettes passed in 1215 would have any major affect on modern life, just because “in perpetuity ” is put at the end does not mean future laws can’t cancel them out-to do otherwise would be legal stagnation ,by the way do these people also think the vile anti Semitic parts of magna carta are still relevant or do they just ignore those bits

  40. the phoenix says:

    Why does every commentary on FOTL movement state nobody has ever successfully won anything with it. I HAVE. I have wiped the floor with united utilities PLC I have also had there debt collectors Advantis credit LTD writing to me to apologise and pleading with me to take no further action against them. I even have the paper work to proove it so if you want to jump off your narrow vision box and want to actually do some proper research into successful cases I’ll give you 14 days to drop a reply here with some form of contact and well go from there. Please do not be deterred by phoney articles such as the above finance assists to create slavery and goes to the very top. Take a look at the system they have created finance and dropped the interest rayes so low everybody wants a piece of the pie, England is now in more debt than Germany was before its hyperinflation. If the interest rates increased by just 1 percent England would crumble and you could only afford to pay your debts with possessions. The whole system has been set for the bank and state to steal your assets.

    The Phoenix

    • Knows Nothing says:

      This is a perfect example, there is no court case to evidence the success FOTL movement because they cannot rule on something outside of their jurisdiction, the cases are merely dismissed.

      • Noah Dillon says:

        Nah, dude. People go to jail when they try to use these defenses. Look it up.

      • Simon edwards says:

        If you Google “UK council tax takedown” the video shows a guy using fotl to to take over the court.
        My question is if fotl is bs then why was he not successful? Why wasn’t a not charged with contempt court?

  41. Jeff Grigg says:

    @The Pheonix: That is most interesting. You claim to have been successful. That is interesting.

    I have to wonder if you have voluntarily entered into a contract with the “united utilities” to pay for their admittedly valuable services. If so, the situation would be easy to understand.

    I find it interesting that it seems that the only way to obtain the “hidden proof” that the “Free Man on The Land” approach is successful is through private (hidden) communication. Maybe this inevitable, given the “corruption” of everything everywhere. But it does strike me as disturbingly similar to the multi-million dollar schemes that I commonly receive via email. It is, honestly, difficult for me to discern the differences between “free man on the land” truth and obviously dishonest scams.

    I would, honestly, be interested in more information. But I would like the discourse to be in a public forum, like this one.

    In terms of “doing your research,” I find the following to be informative:
    Honestly, I find it a bit overwhelming. But insightful. It’s Canadian, and I’m American (United States). Still, it seems relevant.

  42. Rothschild says:

    The author’s surname sure raises red flags…

    • Alison Hudson says:

      No, it doesn’t. For pete’s sake, Mike has been writing for us for awhile now. Yes, he happens to share a last name with a family that many paranoid conspiracy theorists suspect of running the shadow world government or whatever. But honestly, in this day and age, on a website dedicated to the very topics that would draw paranoid conspiracy theories, does it even make sense that if Mike WAS an actual Rothschild operative, that he would write openly under that name? Judge his writing on its merits, not on his surname.

    • Eric Hall says:

      But yet we don’t get your name by which to evaluate your comment. Isn’t the internet fun?

  43. Nathan says:

    Like every argument against the freeman, this piece of litterateur is opinion and has no fact. Every argument for the freeman is always full of law, history and justice. Freemen have had much success in courts and on the street. Quote “mass minded people lack both the depth of character and intellectual capacity to understand “the human life”. (Albert jay nock’s “our enemy the state”). BTW, Every country deserves to own their own federal bank. The borrowing of monies for infrastructure at interest is the biggest and most criminal fraud perpetrated on the peoples of the “free”(what a joke) world. You need to read more sir, with both eyes open.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Who has succeeded in court with a Freeman defense?

    • Ken S. says:

      Every argument for the freemen is filled with bogus misinterpretations of law, appeals to overruled, inapplicable, or failed opinions, confusion over what the outcome of a case means, ignorance about what the UCC is, and failure to understand the history of common law. It is a parade of fools grasping at the appearance of evidence in their favor, while being too dense and uninformed to actually understand what they’re reading.

      Take the “right to travel.” Every single citation given above has been misunderstood. Not one of them protects a right to operate a car without a license or registration. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the authority of states to require licensing and registration for private, non-commercial drivers.

      As for common law, it’s not an alternative to statute law and never has been. From the very first royal statutes issued from the King’s court, statute law has had supremacy over judge-made law, and the courts themselves have agreed.

      Another gem is the claim that governments are illegitimate because they’re “corporations,” which these Freemen fools think is synonymous with a for-profit business. In their colossal idiocy they cite 28 USC 3002 or In re Merriam’s Estate without reading anything more than chopped-up sentences that seem to say what they want to hear. One is referring to Amtrak and FDIC in the context of a single chapter of the US Code, and the other is a state court’s interpretation of a state law, acknowledging the United States government as a political body corporate which is not New Jersey.

      Then there are fraudsters selling kits to make your own “promissory notes” or “Accepted For Value” statements. Have you noticed that none of these charlatans accept payment in homemade promissory notes..?

      Give me any freeman argument, the evidence, and thirty minutes, and I’ll show you why it’s completely hollow. Every single one, every single time.

      • Jim Kopecky says:

        I do not call myself a freeman but I do live in South Dakota I have taken the test for a drivers licence and returned it. I have lawfully disabled my debt with a federal court hearing and signature of approval of Judge Olson. I have been to the state court and argued the willful element. And the highest supreme court rulings that I relied on. I explained that these rulings trump the States foreign legal codes. I explained that I have reclaimed my constitutional rights and no longer owe debt much like the native american have so I no longer have the State protecting my rights. I explained that now due process comes from the 5th amendment. I explained that being you are assuming that I am like most citizens being uneducated in the law. Most do not know about the right to nationality or the right to change ones nationality. So this is like you Judge like your nationality of the Vicar General where we do not have the 14th Amendment due process. Then I explained that the prosecutor would have to have the declaration of authority in a certified certificate authorized by congress. I explained this is to be on public record for all to see and copy. The court was more then happy to dismiss the case. Since then I was pulled over once for speeding on the interstate. The trooper said he was giving me a ticket for speeding no seat belt no insurance no drivers license. I gave him a State Id. He went back to his car, after a few minutes I seen in my rear-view mirror he was on his cell phone. He came back and said only thanks for being honest you are free to go. The only thing I said was yes I was speeding and no I do not wear seat belts and no I am not insured or licensed. The next time I assumed I was pulled over for a licence plate reader. I assume it comes up on the reader I have no drivers license or expired. He also was on the cell phone. Then he drove off leaving me sitting there dumbfounded. He never got out of his car to talk to me he just drove off. This has been about two years ago. If its hollow its because you cannot just wake up one day and say today I am this. I did this with more red tape then imaginable. The only hollow part is the internet misconception of how. My room mate was turned down and now has to start over with a three year wait. I got time to listen to all the arguments of public policy.

  44. Jay Mahon says:

    Umm, talk about speaking from ignorance and bias, so let me correct some things.
    Mike wrote: ‘You’re driving down the street, going as fast as you please and ignoring traffic laws you didn’t consent to.’

    Freeman travel, they not drive or more-to-the-point – they do not legally drive, as legally driving is a regulated occupation for hire, in the transportation of freight and/or passengers for a fee; while performing a function of government.

    Example: All Police Officers, Firefighters, Prison guards, Meter Maids, etc., are bound to follow all Acts, Codes, Statutes as they would be legally driving, while performing a function of government.

    No Freeman would travel down the street, unsafely fast, nor ignoring the safe rules of the roads.
    Mike wrote: ‘After running a red light enforcing said laws which don’t apply to you, you see the blue flashing lights of a police cruiser.’

    The Freeman would proceed safely through the lights and the Police Officer follows procedure, not the law and makes a legal determination of what he presumes of what he saw.

    Mike wrote: ‘While you are within your common law rights to demand any sum of money to pull over, you decide to make it easy on the government enforcer and stop.’

    A Freeman does have ‘rights’ and his time (just like everyone else time), is worth money and as a matter of fact, the Police Officer (or more so, a Policy Enforcer) is making money, along with the Courts and City Hall all making money off that ticket stop.

    Mike wrote: ‘When the police officer approaches your car, you immediately ask “Under what Authority and under what law are you ACTING?”’

    Umm, actually this is incorrect Government agents, do have ‘authority’, but ONLY over those who perform a function of government. The proper statement would be “Under what RIGHT and under what law are you ACTING?”’

    Mike wrote: ‘The government enforcer can’t quote the common law statute that authorizes him to act (why would he, he’s only an agent of the state), only demand to see your license, registration and proof of insurance. However, these statutory obligations don’t apply to you, and you refuse.’

    WHAT, are you kidding me – YES, everyone who perform a function of government, should be specifically by what ‘right’ they are operating under. As for a ‘common law statute’, this is an oxymoron, it doesn’t exist, you have ‘Common Law’ and you have ‘Statutory Law’, as both are very separate. Just like the difference between ‘lawful’ and ‘legal’, or more so, ‘Common Law’ relates to the ‘law’ and Statutory’ relates to ‘legalese’.

    So no, ‘Statutory Laws’ only apply to those who perform a function of government, as outlined in the contracted usage of the ‘Driver’s License’ and not to a man/woman.
    First, one would inform the Police Officer that they are a ‘man/woman’, and then ask if they or ordering the driver’s license, ownership and proof of insurance because order are given an invoice in exchange.

    Example: The Police Officer, who was ordered issue tickets by the Supervisor, who was ordered by the Shift Sergeant, who was ordered by the Shift Sergeant, Lieutenant, etc., and at the end of the week the Police Officer puts his invoice in for the hours and expensives to be reimbursed.
    Mike wrote: ‘The officer asks what your name is, to which you reply “are you seeking a publicly registered legal personality created by the state?”’

    Umm, actually this is also incorrect, one would ask is that an order, to be invoiced.

    Mike wrote: ‘The officer, predictably, orders you out of the car at gun point, arrests you and reads you your “rights.” When asked if you understand these rights, you reply “I do not stand under that statement, nor do I stand under any statement.” Then you’re led into the police car.

    One would ask is that an order, to be invoiced, along with stating – “NO, I do not understand, as “I do not understand legalese”. Also, “What is the bond of the man, interfering with my right to be left alone, especially if not wrong has occurred – A wrong, causing loss, injury or harm to another and/or their property.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Have you ever seen a legal case won on these grounds? Like a judge saying, Oh, yeah, of course you can travel as fast as you like with no license in a car—you just can’t drive it for hire. Or have you seen any other case successfully argued on such grounds?

      • Jim Kopecky says:

        First they are not Judges. They pretend to be a Judge. They need your consent to have a court hearing. They do that under a threat of arrest until you sign a contract to appear. (appearance bail bond, or a ticket.) If you consent to the private revenue generating business then you already lost.

        • I like how you ignored Noah’s actual question. Have you ever seen or heard of a case being won by using any of the tactics you outlined?

          • Jim Kopecky says:

            I am not ignoring it, legal cases do not have judges they are administrators. Lawful cases have Judges and if I could post a dismissal with prejudice of various cases if I could email it. The thing is this and its no B.S. the lower state courts are only there to make money or revenue that it. They do not care about guilt Innocent justice just one thing revenue. You have to have to have the higher courts rule in favor of you a couple of times. In other words its know by the lower court if you are a push over for the revenue. They lost money on me so many times that they do not want me in the court what so ever. Its no fun anymore they throw the case out before I go to court. If you want me to email some no problem. But you have to post them here.

      • Jay Mahon says:

        Umm no, as you are asking a loaded question, along with mixing courts.

        Firstly, a legal case is in a ‘Statutory Court’, in this type of court the Government is God, the Judge is Jesus and the Prosecuting is Michael the Angel and the clerks, bailiffs, tellers, etc., are various other minor angels. So no, as for your question the Judge would not state this, as he is under the presumption you are acting under the driver’s license, as someone performing a function of government.

        Example – As the Judge is an Officer of the Government, he is overseeing, is limited to those who perform a function of government; exactly like at your work, your supervisor overseeing is to those performing a function as your work. When you punch out for the day, you are no longer bound by the Rules, Regulations, Codes, by-laws, etc., of your employer.

        To the Government – you are the ‘legal named person’ aka ‘the defendant’ is a scum-bag. That scum-bag defendant is you, for parking 10 minutes longer than the meter, its your mother for watering her lawn on the wrong day, its your father for going making an improper line change (whatever the hell that means) and your grandmother for forgetting to get her cat mittens a new cat’s license.

        To the Government, you and your family are a bunch of scum-bags, criminals, defendants, parasites on society (oh, and that presumed society is that of the Law Society and all of its 10,000+ Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Codes, etc.), so I guess you and your family are … because the Government said so & so “Hello to you Noah the Scum-bag & the Dillion Scum-bag family!’, basically you are a slave to the Government.

        This is not a place, I myself wants to be in, so I present Notice to remove the presumptions held by my Public Services – “I, a man do stand here to claim my rights, does any man/woman wish to claim anything to the contrary”.

        Secondly, yes a lawful case in a ‘Common Law Court’, are won on the grounds of I, a man did not cause harm to anyone else, in traveling for point A to point B, at a safe rate of speed, without a government granted permission, of which the license is (NOTE: it is not unlawful to travel with license – just as they did for 5000 years before the license; and yes chariots crashed, just like horses, donkeys, bicycles, sleds, roller skates, stages coaches, etc., and still do today).

        Also no, ‘legally driving’ is driving for ‘hire’, while performing a function of government and its not a ‘car, truck, bus, etc.’, the government only has authority over ‘motor vehicles’, a ‘legalese term’, created by them.

        Note: The Government legally defines ‘child’, why, but to change its meaning, as to something it has authority … because if there is anyone of sound, over the age of (5) five, who does know what a ‘child’, then that is evidence the definition of ‘child’ has been manipulated by the Government – for some ‘special’ & ‘unknown’ reason.

        Finally, as a man, I would not travel at an unsafe speed (that what would cause harm to others or myself) and the hold point is to not cause harm; so do you have any agreed upon factual evidence that my ‘lawful speeding’ harm you or any other man/woman?

        • Ken S. says:

          On what basis do you claim that “common law” is an alternative to the statute law? This would be an interesting reversal of nearly a millenium of firm consensus among judges in England, the United Kingdom, its colonies, and the United States (after conditionally receiving English common law BY STATUTE!) I need some evidence more substantial than “well, they’re not REAL judges, and that’s not the REAL law, because, um, well here’s some legal-sounding mumbo jumbo that means precisely nothing. Also it depends on you already agreeing with me.”

          • Jay Mahon says:

            Umm, some of the stuff stated wasn’t by me, but by some other commenters.

            Ken wrote: ‘On what basis do you claim that “common law” is an alternative to the statute law?’

            I didn’t claim ‘common law’ an alternative to ‘statute law’, JUST that the former applies to a ‘man/woman’ and the latter applies to those who perform a function of government (that’s perform, as in directly or indirectly because a Police Informant isn’t necessarily paid, but do receive a benefit from government.

            Ken wrote: ‘This would be an interesting reversal of nearly a millennium of firm consensus among judges in England, the United Kingdom, its colonies, and the United States (after conditionally receiving English common law BY STATUTE!)’

            Of course, judge’s (who perform a function of gov’t) are all in consensus that English common law is to be included by statute. Therefore, all State courts are common law courts and the judge’s are bound to uphold any claim within their jurisdiction.

            Even the United States Courts agree – see the document below:


            Ex. – the Bible itself, is full of common law and it is still held as law in any common law court of record, BUT if anywhere there is a conflict in law, rules, code, regulations, etc., the common law will take precedence.

            Ken wrote: ‘I need some evidence more substantial than “well, they’re not REAL judges, and that’s not the REAL law, because, um, well here’s some legal-sounding mumbo jumbo that means precisely nothing. Also it depends on you already agreeing with me.”

            Umm, for the record – I never stated judges, laws or anything else wasn’t “REAL’, if I take you to court, and both of us parties, consent to the court jurisdiction, the use of the judge and the laws, then – of course, its all ‘REAL’.

            BUT, if the Government or some other body corporate (corporation) takes you (a man) to court, then you bring your ‘claim’ into court to address your accuser, if he has an ‘proper claim’, is there a ‘verified debt’, is there an unbiased witness to testify, etc.

            A ‘claim’ will trump any ‘criminal complaint’, as in it will be heard first by the judge.

        • Ken S. says:

          I can’t reply to your other reply, but the screenshot you showed me has a lot of context that you’ve ignored to prop up this silly claim that statutes only apply to “men.” The fact that a court has common law power has nothing to do with whether it can apply statutes to “men.” That 700 years of consensus isn’t that royal, parliamentary, and legislative statutes only apply to government officials — it’s that these statutes apply to everybody, and that common law does not trump statutes.

    • Ken S. says:

      If you’re going by common law, i.e. judge-made law, then you should realize that judges in common law jurisdictions have accepted and supported the supremacy of statute law. That’s why it’s routine for old court decisions to be nullified by new legislation that makes them obsolete. Remember the Dred Scott decision? That was common law. What do you think happened to it, and why?

      Judging from the words you use, I’m guessing we’re both American. How do you think the English common law was received in the United States, anyway? By reception statutes! How could that have happened if statute law wasn’t already supreme? There wouldn’t have been any need for reception statutes if common law was the default body of law in this country. How can a body of law conditionally adopted by statute take be supreme over the statutes that adopted it in the first place? That would be like a child grounding his parents.

      • mrjaymahon says:

        Ken S wrote: ‘If you’re going by common law, i.e. judge-made law, then you should realize that judges in common law jurisdictions have accepted and supported the supremacy of statute law.’

        Common law isn’t judge-made, it’s the customs of the people of that land. In a common law jurisdiction, the common law is supreme, as the a statutory created court, then Yes, statutes are supreme.

        Ken S wrote: ‘That’s why it’s routine for old court decisions to be nullified by new legislation that makes them obsolete.

        Yes, statutes can change and do change about every (7) years, of which new legislation dictates the new rules of government.
        Ken S wrote: ‘Remember the Dred Scott decision? That was common law. What do you think happened to it, and why?

        Umm, this was a Supreme Court decision – of which was a Constitutional issue and this is a contract to and between the US Government and the States, it does not apply to you and I, the Constitution only directly or indirectly; affects us. Read the Constitution, it reads that way.

        Ken S wrote: ‘How do you think the English common law was received in the United States, anyway?’

        The Americans who came to the USA, brought the common law with them as they were mostly English. The US Government was created by statute, as statutes were created to direct the actions of the Government and all those who perform a function of government.

        Ken S wrote: ‘How could that have happened if statute law wasn’t already supreme? There wouldn’t have been any need for reception statutes if common law was the default body of law in this country.’
        Correction, common law isn’t the default body of law – it’s merely the law between man & woman, as statutes apply to the Government and all those who perform a function of government aka ‘persons’ (legal fictions).

        Ex – A Police Officer is ‘acting’ as a ‘person’ in a government Office, his position (job) is based upon duties & obligations and responsibilities; created by statute which outlines their ‘authority’. I, a man cannot sue an Office (of which the Police Officer holds), I have to sue the ‘man/woman’ acting as a Police Officer, for violating my property, as in my ‘rights’. The Police Officer’s position only exists on paper, I a man created government and offices, etc., a creation will not harm its creation, a man.

        Ken S wrote: ‘How can a body of law conditionally adopted by statute take be supreme over the statutes that adopted it in the first place? That would be like a child grounding his parents.

        Most people get caught up in legalese and try to play lawyer, instead of just being ‘man/woman’ because the land (as in the dirt) was here long before any statutes were created to identify the US Government.

        • Noah Dillon says:

          Whoa. I know this doesn’t have a lot to do with the content of what you wrote, at least not directly, but your usage and punctuation are all messed up.

          I don’t know what distinction you’re trying to draw with your example. Of course you can’t sue an abstraction. You sue the people charged with implementing something because either they did something wrong, or what they’re legally allowed or required to do is superseded by a law that invalidates that action. A police officer’s position doesn’t only exist on paper: the police officer is charged with doing tasks and only exists if someone is fulfilling those tasks. No one policing means no police, on paper or otherwise.

          I don’t know where you get the notion that common law is only made for people and not institutions. Common law is precendent and you can have precedents that regulate institutions or organizations.

          I don’t know where that last line comes from: you’re playing lawyer here! What does it matter whether dirt existed before the US Government? It doesn’t! Dirt existed before commerce or any of the disagreements Freemen claim. It existed before vehicles, licenses, homes, property, or any other thing. I don’t understand your argument.

          • mrjaymahon says:

            Ok if the punctuation is confusing you I won’t use any except comas and periods.

            A lawful wrong is to cause loss injury or harm to a man.

            A legal crime is whatever someone else’s opinion of what they didn’t like you did, while performing a function of government.

            Examples of legal crimes Jaywalking, improper lane change, walking a dog without a leash, watering your lawn on the incorrect day, etc. All of the above are not lawful wrongs because there was no loss, injury or harm.

            Yes, there are legal Codified crimes, which encompass harm such as murder, rape, assault, but they are in the Code, which is derived from the law, so when the Government takes you to court, its a common law jurisdiction.

            A Police Officer holds the roles that of Policy Enforcement Officer (legal crimes) and that of a Peace Officer (Coded lawful wrongs), both of which have limited jurisdiction outlined in their duties and obligations within their authority.

            But at any time, a man can be a Peace Officer to help his fellow man, of which is his right.

            No Police Officer has to do anything, under the claim of sovereign immunity and is legally protected.

            Ex – The Police can watch you get mugged and then assist you after the fact, if they feel its safe to do so.

            Yes, a Police Officer’s position, as in his Office exists only on paper because his jurisdiction only exists on paper.

            The City of Wherever is a body corporate, it is not the same thing as Wherever city which is the geographically area. The Government would like you to think so though.

            The City of Wherever is an incorporated business, of which is a certified paper outlining its Charter of said business, located on the wall at City Hall and its service area is Wherever city.

            Ex – A lawn cutting business, its service area is all of Wherever city, but that doesn’t mean its employees can stop me from mowing my own lawn.

            No one policing means no policy enforcement or more to the point revenue generation, but any man can be tasked with being a Peace Officer.

            The common law is only made for man against man as institutions have no arms, legs or voice to cause harm or speak, it is the agent or officer which causes the harm.

            Institutions, organizations and corporations were all created on paper, a 2 dimensional world and that’s where paper statutes come in to regulate the 2 dimensional business world of those performing a function of government, in that paper world.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            I don’t know where you’re getting all this from. Can you point to some definable terms? I can’t find anywhere something called a “legal crime” or a “legal codified crime.”

            These examples are indecipherable, too. Of course a lawn mowing business can’t stop you from mowing your lawn. So what? What does that show? A city government is not the same as a lawn care service. It’s obligations and aims are totally different. It’s constructed in a completely different way. You also don’t periodically elect the CEO of Smith Mowing & Edging, and SM&E doesn’t have any obligation to you as a constituent. So what?

            I’m not going to argue this point anymore, but I’ll point out again that police exist more than simply on paper; they’re not the same as a Platonic abstraction, a space elevator, or a perpetual motion machine.

            Revenues can be completely decoupled from policing. Yes, police often derive revenues from civil forfeiture and the city can derive revenues from fines, but it obviously doesn’t have to be that way. They could just lock you up or cane you or make you do penitence for infractions, or whatever. Civil society in the US has basically agreed that doing so is stupid and so we use fines instead. But law isn’t merely instituted as a money-making scheme.

            Again, you misunderstand common law, which is case law. Case law includes precedents regarding the interaction of corporate bodies with each other (both public and private), of corporate bodies with individuals, AND of individuals with other individuals.

            I think you should talk to a legal scholar, someone who can describe theory and practice to you, someone who knows these terms, how they’re used in civil interactions, and how the state relates to people and other institutions. Because what it seems you’re saying is that everything is reducible to abstractions and magical oration, and that something called “common law” (which is not the same as what a lawyer, judge, business, regular person, law historian, or anyone else who understands common law would describe as common law). Where are real people in your conception? Police officers apparently only exist on paper, governments are 2D fictions, lawn care services are the same as municipalities, and crimes are sorted with terms that I can’t find anywhere except in this comment. So I don’t know why there are people in uniforms engaging in car chases, or detectives solving murders, why the guy who edges my yard doesn’t also propose municipal bonds, how it can be that there are people administering different agencies that only exist as magic text, and so on. And I don’t know why any of this should matter if it makes no practical physical difference in the world. Since no one has ever won a court case by magical manipulation of abstractions the court doesn’t recognize as actual law, then why should I care?

          • mrjaymahon says:

            There are (4) words that are believed to be the same, but are not – legal / lawful / illegal / unlawful

            Ex – It is currently illegal to use cannabis (marijuana) according to US Federal Statute, but it is lawful to cannabis (marijuana) without US Federal interference.

            I used the term legal crime, to express that the word crime is the violation of a Statute, Codes, Act, Rule, Regulation, etc.

            CRIME. (Black’s 4th Ed.) – A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State.

            A penal law is one imposing a penalty or punishment (and properly a pecuniary fine or mulct) for some offense of a public nature or wrong committed against the state.

            All US Government Codes, are codified from the law, of which is a scroll stored in the Library of Congress and that codifying is performed and published by a Canadian Company called Thompson Reuters. Thompson will bring in its lawyers to interpret and give their opinion of what the public law reads because how can any US man or woman sue them for their misinterpretation.

            Yes, a lawn mowing business and a City corporation are structured different, as the City has more department, but they both have the same service area. If you vote and if you vote for the winning Mayor, then you get to vote for the Mayor, if not, you get whoever is picked and they have no obligation to you as a constituent because they are not bound to keeping their promises.

            I’m not really sure what you mean by – police exist more than simply on paper. A Police Officer exists, but his Office is an abstraction because one cannot sue this Office, one can sue the man holding the Office.

            Really, your response is: “it obviously doesn’t have to be that way. They could just lock you up or cane you or make you do penitence for infractions, or whatever.”, well that’s exactly what they do now, along with the use fines and the creation of bonds because is it merely an institutional money-making scheme.

            Yes, some common law is from individual case law and custom sourced judge-interpreted, especially within English common law, along with sources being used from the Bible.

            Case law includes precedents regarding the interaction of corporate bodies with each other (both public and private), of corporate bodies with individuals, AND of individuals with other individuals.

            Yes, a legal scholar/lawyer would give me his arbitrary opinions on a description of theory and practice, along the definition of legal terms.

            Within common law, one knows when they have done a wrong, one doesn’t need a 300 worded Code.

            Ex – Bible – Unlawful – Thou shall not kill.
            Code – Illegal – 18 U.S. Code § 1111 – Murder

            (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
            Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
            (b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
            Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
            Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
            (c) For purposes of this section—
            (1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
            (2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
            (A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
            (B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
            (3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
            (4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
            (5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
            (6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).

            A man & woman exist, we the people created the government, which is a incorporated business and therefore a 2D legal fiction, a body corporate. The government created Offices for its Agents/Officers to possess. These Agents/Officers are to police the government’s policies, and those who perform a function of government – be those who hold an Office, claim to US citizens, even a jail yard snitch.

            I know why there are Police Officers, they are to keep the peace, they are not to engage in car chases because that put other people in harms way. When detectives are asked for their help, then they are to help in the solving murders.

            It’s not magic, it’s just that all the Agents/Officers administering the different agencies for the government are not permitted through judicial precedents to engage in the soliciting of the public, in order to offer services, but they violate their own statutes.

            If one goes into court as the defendant, then you are correct, no one can really win in an Administrative court case, but if one goes to court as a man/woman, in a common law court, as the prosecutor against any legal fiction, then one will win, it will seem magical to all the people in the room, but the black robed one will rule in your favour.

          • Jim Kopecky says:

            And what you have put into words is absolute correct. You nailed it. You would be a great asset to National Liberty Alliance. We are winning the war on these corrupt tyrants. We the people can make changes. And we are. We are in all 50 states now. We are not going away. Please be part of the ones that care about the direction or country is going. Thank You.

        • Ken S. says:

          “Common law isn’t judge-made, it’s the customs of the people of that land. In a common law jurisdiction, the common law is supreme, as the a statutory created court, then Yes, statutes are supreme.”

          This is b******t from top to bottom. Common law is a judicial system invented by King Henry II in the 12th century to replace the numerous local judiciaries in England that operated arbitrarily and according to completely different sets of law. Local customs are a source of guidance to judges in a common law system, but the common law is written in the decisions of the courts. That is to say, it is written by judges. Since these courts operate under the authority of a sovereign empowered to create statute law, statutes have always been a part of common law. I invite you to look through the centuries of case law to find a single instance where a common law court has found that the sovereign has no power to enforce statutes against “men and women.” You won’t find one, because this entire doctrine is phony crap thought up by scammers and frauds.

  45. WMcCreery says:

    Wow, the nuts are out in force!!

  46. Ken S. says:

    Isn’t it cute how their triumphant “counter-legalese” sounds more like they’re trying to recite magic spells from Harry Potter than like they have any clue whatsoever how law actually works?

    • mrjaymahon says:

      Yes Ken, you are correct legalese is the manipulation of common words, so when a man/woman uses simple words in common law, watch the magic work – the judges, agents, clerks all run around following your orders and wishes; along with judges saying yes sir or no sir.

      The best example is when statutes define the word ‘infant’, if no one over the age of (5), doesn’t know what an ‘infant’ is, then there has been a deliberate manipulation of the definition for some purpose.

      I understand what the Freeman movement is trying to do, but they reduce their status of a man, by adding the word ‘free’.

      Also, the Freeman movement is trying to use the legal society’s words, statutes, court rulings & methods to work in their courts, which is copyright material and the status of defendant is an unwinnable position. (From time to time one may win – very low percentage.)

      One has to prosecute the government in one’s court of common law, then one sets the rules and language used.

      Thanks, Ken for being so insightful.

  47. Jim Kopecky says:

    You can always tell who has never argued there case in court. Legal is not Lawful, Legal is public policy, it has no office or complaint department. Lawful is what trumps the sovereign public policy that has the invisible office. Some of you will know what I am talking about, how does the Vicar General get away with this stuff is beyond me. Law works coded legal systems makes victims.

    • Ken S. says:

      A couple questions for ya:

      On what are you basing this claim that “legal is not lawful,” and that statute law is invalid? Are you aware that judges in common law jurisdictions have been consistently upholding the supremacy of statutes for over 700 years?

  48. Jim Kopecky says:

    How many statues are mentioned in the supreme court rulings of the USA? only 2 times and this was just recently.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      If you mean “statutes” you’re totally wrong. Every Supreme Court case deals with statutes, and cite statutes and case law to make their arguments. Go look at the full text of any session of oral arguments and/or any decision by the court.

  49. enril1 10 says:

    Have you read any of the material that has been put out by judge Anna von Reitz? Based upon what she has shed light on and furthered by the US non rebuttle, I say we have been screwed by this defacto government all of our lives.

    It had been he’ll on earth and fraud had been committed at a grand scale. Read on out man or maybe you already have and are on the side that doesn’t believe our care about God’s precepts and principals.

    • Ken S. says:

      Fun fact: Anna von Reitz is not and was not a judge. She never exercised any legitimate judicial authority in any properly-constituted court. She simply gave herself the title “Judge” because she felt like it. The government has more important things to do than meticulously rebut every idiot who decides to give themself a phony title.

  50. Gary Farquhar says:

    Why would anyone trust the words of a person named Rothschild?
    You confuse legal with lawful.
    Legal is given “force of law” if consent if given by the goverened
    Consent ofthe majority is assumed as given by the state without consultation therefore is not valid
    FOTL cases have been won and it is people like you that set out to undermine common rights in favour or artificial ones.

  51. NEIL FERGUSON says:

    I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with a number of court cases regarding property tax where the defendant has used FMOTL arguments as their defence. All have lost.

    I know some of the idiots on here will spout off and demand evidence but the data protection act will not allow me to give details.

    Do an internet search and quote Northern Ireland and you should find some of them ok. They have been reported by the local press.

    So, sorry folks, you’re deluded. It doesn’t work no matter how much you wish for it to.

  52. Hahahah Whooopee! Party on Wayne! No taxes, no laws!

  53. NEIL FERGUSON says:

    We’ve had about ten of these people through court and we’ve won every time. I think they were seen as a threat before but the courts now have a handle on them and just ignore their rantings. But feel free to show me evidence to the contrary. Remember, it’s the final court verdict I’m looking for, not a befuddled minor official who was not prepared for this nonsense.

  54. ruth anne says:

    I would not drive down the road as fast as I please. That is just reckless and stupid. I am the servant of Jesus Christ. He is my King. I am commanded by my king to love my neighbor as my self. The united states of america corporation’s statues have nothing to do with the righteousness of God. Money is their God and their legal enforcement is intent with one purpose: generating riches. I have no problem complying with any law that is based on the righteous standards of the Most High. I will not bow down to a fascist system that enslaves God’s people by casting them into prison for crimeless conduct. Most of these cases are overruled by judges, not because the defense isnt valid, but because the same spirit that is behind the judicial system is the same as Pharaoh in the day of Israel’s enslavement. The jews didnt just go before the dictator and say: “we have a God given right not to be your slaves, and we are not your citizens that you should have authority over us”. Pharaoh: “oh my, yes, I see you are not in our jurisdiction, my mistake. Your all free to go, here take some water before you leave”. It took 10 plagues, the death of his son and he still chased after him. So for those of you who think that you are going to stand against the system apart from God are at loss. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places(Epeshians 6). The earth is the Lord’s and they that dwell therein (Psalms 24). It does not belong to the United States of America Inc. Repent america be washed in the blood of the lamb. No unrighteous person will inherit the kingdom of God. God is allowing this fascist system to take over because of all the ungodlessness. Return to God and He will lift you up. He is our savior, our high tower. Some trust in riches, guns, and man. I trust in the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Selah.

    • lynden says:

      Yes I do believe what you say is true..even better when you have prove it like I my statement…we are soldier’s in the army of God…just so I can learn where you are up to in the teaching if you don’t NAME is lynden.

  55. BCurls says:

    I don’t pretend to understand “Freemen of the Land”, but this is destroying our family. A member of our family has decided to take it upon himself to preach and act upon this “Freemen of the Land” life, and the stress of it all, is only breaking up a “once strong and united” family.
    I wish he had never stumbled upon any articles about this in the first place, our family would be intact and happy as ever. This has done nothing but throw us into turmoil. I want our family back to the way it was before this nonsense.

    • lynden says:

      This is no nonsense… What he fights for is for you and all around him/her…the LAND an freedom of soul…support him…or our women will be suppressed for eternity…
      I can help in Way’s one would never ever know…
      Thy kingdom come THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH as it is in Heaven

  56. Justin Walker says:

    Are you a Zionist and a supporter of the State of Israel?

  57. Jay Wesley says:

    If this is gibberish, How specifically do these flesh and blood people of faith in liberty and freedom cause chaos and confusion within a court of privilege where rights are non existent? The courts must be pretty worried about all crime being commercial where brave people are standing in the face of what you claim without proof!

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Causing chaos with nonsense claims doesn’t sound like a victory. It sounds like an annoyance and an abuse of the court system. A victory would be if they could win a court case with their claims. So far as I know, none has. I think that if every case has been won against people attempting this method then courts probably aren’t too worried about it, just annoyed.

      Rights ARE extant in courtrooms. The very fact that these things GO TO COURT is a right, guaranteed by the US Constitution. There are no legal loopholes you can exploit with magic words.

  58. its people like this writer that do not even understand what this country stands for the Constitution is the supreme law of the land you cannot just erase that because you’re greedy and think you can dominate another man I hate to tell you but we are governed by consent and our Constitution only allows two jurisdiction the common law and a military tribunal under Admiralty law I don’t think when you were growing up as a kid you pledge allegiance to a democracy I believe it was a republic that we all pledge allegiance to so you need to do some fact checking if the government thinks that it is sovereign and most states if not all say their sovereign as well the people should be free and not just a cash cow. you have judges that take oath’s of office to defend the Constitution and our rights as sovereign Americans and these police with their blue lights and guns that their only role is to protect our rights and serve and protect who you guessed it We the People but instead they’re stupid as fuck like you and think they can do whatever or say whatever they won’t like throw you in jail or shoot you dead on the side of the street when you’re not breaking the law but a statue l suggest you forgot what the differences is and what’s really going on before you write stupid shit that you don’t even understand but hey this is America and you can say and do whatever you want until it starts impeding on someone else’s rights you want to write something why don’t you do some investigating and write some truth instead of trying to pick people aiport for standing up for their rights and pointing out that this corrupt bastards or overstepping their boundaries every way possible and acting like they own and control this country I hate to tell you but it’s we the people who run and control things a power cannot be more powerful from which it was derived we created government not the other way around

    • Ken S. says:

      I can barely discern any meaning whatsoever from that frothy word diarrhea you just spewed out, but I think I have some fun facts that could come in handy for you:

      1. Statutes have been part of common law ever since it was invented by Henry II in the 12th century, and they displace any customary judge-made law. That is to say, if the General Assembly enacts a valid (i.e., not unconstitutional) statute, courts are bound to apply it, even if it contradicts previous established common law.

      2. There has never been a time in the entire history of common law when courts had the lawful authority to ignore the sovereign, whether that was the King, Parliament, or another bonafide lawmaking body.

      3. In a republic, the people grant their government the authority to exercise their collective sovereignty. A couple thousand uninformed jack-offs declaring that the government is invalid do not make it so, especially if they can’t help but talk as though they’ve already won and everybody else is just too dumb to realize it.

      4. The United States are all organized as republics and are all empowered to act as the sovereign in the context of common law. In other words, they are empowered to create binding statutes.

      Does this help any?

  59. straw heart says:

    Firstly, it is within our rights to remain silent when the police stop us.
    Secondly, you are assuming that all FOTL thinkers disregard codes of conduct on the road, most do not any more than any one else.
    Laws in England are Common Law Juristriction, they cannot be repealed. I do you no harm, you do me no harm.
    If I were to murder someone I would be tried in a Criminal court.
    That would be Justice.
    When the police stop us for speeding, we do not have to give our details, we have not committed a crime. Speeding is not a crime, hitting someone whilst driving and them injuring or killing them is the crime.
    All Acts and Statutes are not law.
    They are nothing more than let’s say, rules. People of course break rules, but unless someone is injured or dies, or their property is broken or destroyed.
    Then breaking rules are not s crime.
    Why then if say speeding (which no one should do to the detriment of their fellow man) is not a crime, it’s s rule, why do people get fines or penalties?
    Answer: to find the governments war mongering and other wastes of public money. Fines are just pilfering money off the public, especially those ill able to pay them.
    But what are many of these rules about?
    Yes, safety comes into it, but that’s not top priority, money is!!!
    The U.K. Government is totally corrupt now, that is why more and more people who are realising that fact are finding out their ‘right!’ We have been hood winked too long. Example: Council Tax is not a tax at all, it’s called a tax to froghten us into paying up. Paying the council for service we have no say in, we have no contract with.
    If you are happy with the EU telling you what to do, as is now the case, go along in your life and question nothing!
    But if you see the real agenda of Facism then wake up and research, research.

    • Ken S. says:

      “Laws in England are Common Law Juristriction, they cannot be repealed. I do you no harm, you do me no harm.”

      This has never been a rule in English common law. If that’s the only way you can think of an offense, then just think of “victimless crimes” as crimes which harm the state. Those have been around ever since common law was invented in the 12th century. At no time has a statute been invalidated because it prohibited conduct without a human victim.

      “All Acts and Statutes are not law.”

      Every dictionary, every court decision, the history of common law, and the practical effect of acts/statutes demonstrate that this is false. It’s a delusion sold by people who can’t read a fast food menu without trying to deliberately misunderstand it.

      When you people say “research, research,” what you mean is “find a web page with bogus schlock that says I’m right, and then never look at any other evidence for the rest of your life.”

  60. Anon says:

    Oh dear haha. I read this article and had to laugh at the surname of the author. A Rothschild no less, trying to muddy the good name of the freeman movement. I can’t be bothered to say anything else to you, but will speak to anyone reading this who does not know otherwise… freeman on the land “tactics” as this author puts it, DO work and people DO win when using them. Because guess what? They are based in truth. There are PLENTY of examples, with proof, posted on the internet, of people who have successfully defended themselves when using FOTL advice.

    Rothschild indeed lol!

    • Ken S. says:

      No, they really, really don’t. “Freemen” invariably don’t understand how common law works, how courts work, how to read laws, how to define words in laws, and every time you try to explain it to them, the will, almost without exception, defend their position by copying and pasting some tract or list of fraudulent or misinterpreted decisions, without the mental capacity to consider the questions and evidence put to them. Freemen have not discovered the truth by careful consideration — somebody told them what they want to hear, and they turned their brains off and left the room. Trying to use logic and facts on a freeman is like using sex appeal to fix a toaster.

  61. JW says:

    To articulate the negatives of what is meant by freemen on the land, is to again suggest that creation by our God the Father is also nonsense and that the true laws of the Ten Commandments were not created but that the only law to be followed is statutory law created by evil men to make commercial wealth for the few and slaves of the many using administrative, legislative, legal procedures and public policy to control the people without their consent with adhesive contracts or fictional persons or titles of nobility, so am I the name the government created or the true flesh and blood man or woman God created? I choose the Father!!

  62. Therase F W says:

    Thank you Mike for posting this. I had seen some “freedom of travel” youtube videos and was quite confused about the rational of the travellers. In particular, how their apparent right to travel includes the right to drive a 1400 kg mass at a speed that can kill with no proof of ability (driver’s license) or roadworthiness (registration). Putting their “right to travel” before another person’s right to life is selfish in the extreme. Such vehicles did not exist when the Magna Carta was written, nor when the US or Canadian constitutions were written either. I looked into it and saw a video about how we each have a paper “straw man” and the like and became even more confused. Thank you for doing the research to clear that up!

  63. Sy says:

    Mike Rothschild says:
    March 17, 2015 at 1:46 pm
    Felipe, did you bother reading what you copypastaed?

    “while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing an others Rights”

    A person running a stop sign because they didn’t consent to the jurisdiction of stop signs is not conducting themselves in “an orderly and decent manner” as they are imperiling the safety of others. There is no right to put someone else in danger because you feel like it, and no court anywhere will back you up on that.

    Freeman on the Land is another term for “the rules don’t apply to me.” And I’m sorry, but they do.


    In response to your comment about putting people in danger… (Assumed/perceived danger)

    Allow me to read you a few maxims of law… (I will assume you comprehend what a maxim is. If not, you have no place talking of such things).

    An act of God does wrong to no one. ● The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. ● No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force, or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed. ● The execution of law does no injury. ● An action is not given to one who is not injured. ● An action is not given to him who has received no damages. ● He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain. ● Mistakes, neglect, or misconducts are not to be regarded as accidents. ● Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give. ● What one has paid knowing it not to be due, with the intention of recovering it back, he cannot recover back. ● No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another’s act. ● There may be damage or injury inflicted without any act of injustice. ● Not every loss produces and injury. ● A personal injury does not receive satisfaction from a future course of proceeding. ● Wrong is wiped out by reconciliation. ● An injury is extinguished by the forgiveness or reconcilement of the party injured. [Luke 17:3-4, 2 Corinthians 2:7-8]

    An action is not given to him that is not injured/received no damages… Ergo, no harm/loss no foul. Putting someone’s ‘life in danger’ doesn’t not mean you have caused them injury or loss. Now if you went through a red light and someone had to slam on their brakes, it could be said that your actions caused them to fear for their life. Here in the UK, that is a crime. If however the only one around to see was a police officer, then who has been made to fear for their own life by the action? The correct answer is no one… As I said, no harm, no foul.

    And a few more Maxims with regard to statutes…

    A statute is an act of parliament that may be given the force of law, and may be enacted upon the governed, only with the consent of the governed. (No where does it state that a statute IS law. Merely that it MAY be given the FORCE OF LAW, and then ONLY with CONSENT.) ● Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent. ● Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties. ● To him consenting no injury is done. ● He who consents cannot receive an injury. ● Consent removes or obviates a mistake. ● He who mistakes is not considered as consenting. ● Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent. ● A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. ● One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury. ● The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract. ● The contract makes the law. ● Agreements give the law to the contract. ● The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law. ● Advice, unless fraudulent, does not create an obligation. ● No action arises out of an immoral consideration. ● No action arises on an immoral contract. ● In the agreements of the contracting parties, the rule is to regard the intention rather than the words. ● The right of survivorship does not exist among merchants for the benefit of commerce. ● When two persons are liable on a joint obligation, if one makes default the other must bear the whole. ● You ought to know with whom you deal. ● He who contracts, knows, or ought to know, the quality of the person with whom he contracts, otherwise he is not excusable. ● He who approves cannot reject. ● If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes. ● Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply. ● Manner and agreement overrule the law.

    These maxims are taken directly from man’s law dictionaries and court cases. The following books were referenced:
    1. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier, [1856]
    2. Legal Maxims, by Broom and Bouvier, [1856]
    3. A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, [1893]
    4. Black’s Law Dictionary, by Henry Campell Black, [3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions, 1933-1990]
    5. Maxims of Law, by Charles A. Weisman, [1990]

    *Comments in (brackets) are added of my own thoughts and not part of the maxim itself*

    • Ken S. says:

      I hope you realize that the courts are not bound by the Bible, privately-published law dictionaries (particularly ones that haven’t been updated in a century), or the imaginary rule that every offense needs to have a human victim and cause physical, emotional, or monetary damages. The common law and courts have been recognizing and punishing offenses against the state/crown for about a millennium now. Your post describes how you would like the law to function, but it does not describe how it actually does function.

    • Thomas says:

      It is not God driving a car unlicensed and unregistered and uninsured.
      If he exists, he would prevent or heal instantly any injury by “beings” proclaiming divine sovereignty that power. I am yet to see a freeman proclaiming after an accident he/she healed the injured and no one suffered any injury?
      Time to wake up and see the fallacy of this cult!

  64. Hello colleagues, good article and good arguments commented at this place, I am truly enjoying by these.

  65. Anne Pollard says:

    Oh my, what a lot of gibberish in these posts. I gave up around mid 2014, this will run and run, no doubt. I did wonder how long it would be before the arguments came down to ‘Jewish conspiracy’ given Mike’s surname.
    Personally, I don’t think it’s the Jews or the Rothschilds who run things, it’s the giant lizards; they’re jealous of our mighty intellects, and our spelling and grammar skills.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      I think it took, like, three posts, tops, for the “you’re a Rothschild” accusations to start pouring in.

    • paul says:

      jealous of what exactly ha ha!
      mighty intellects of what?
      gibberish you have to prove it?? lol
      oh my indeed

    • paul says:

      giant lizards surely not
      next being told there’s a beach but just waiting and playing the long game. lol
      they are silly its like the signing of the noah….. consipiracy no no
      its like mind control its stupid…. its like telling chosen people that they have all the power

      jealous and mighty intellect you have to show them who gave you this?
      remember to stick the index finger and the little finger in the air
      its all gibberish it depends upon what you wish for ?
      its nonsense who would want to wish to get rid of the white race so they could have dark days
      pmsl next minute listening to people with triiangles and a hex on a cap telling you they are bringing the stars out and its all inclusive.
      I mean who would want to be free from that crap.

  66. Jim Allen says:

    I just scanned the list of maxims posted by Sy. It had to be a cut-and-past job. There was no sign of anyone having expending any mental effort in compiling it. Heaven knows what the doctrine of consideration has to do with anything. It seems to me that these po-faced nitwits with their madcap ideas on the law, could waste time for their respective countries. I only yesterday encountered this loopy stuff and while the ineptitude of these clueless dingbats did give me a few laughs I was moved to consider the amount of time they must waste in their dealings with officials and courts. Self-represented litigants are painful enough, but when they are spouting pseudo-legal babble of such a vacuous character they must drive their interlocutors to distraction. Perhaps that’s their intent, but it’s hard to work out what’s in it for them. And it’s bad enough in a Commonwealth country when you encounter dill-brains citing Magna Carta, but to hear Americans doing so just amazes me. Magna Carta! Good grief! This sort of thing brings cluelessness to heights not reached since about the year 600. This has been an hour or so I will never get back but thanks. Note: I did consent. Ha ha ha.

    • paul says:

      I know there is some right idiots that bang on about the noahide laws that really believe that the world will be a great place. To hear the way that israell goes on its got mk ultra waiting for something to happen.
      Definitely aload of nutty clusters

  67. mike .w says:

    mark mcmurtrie an australian of native geneology created his own road transport company and issues his own number plates…..police will not touch him in australia….the anti monopoly law do not permit one road authority to control all trade as far as registrations are concerned….but in many states this is the case.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      A. Australian law is not the same as American law. B. I can’t find any information about “Mark McMurtrie” except a confusing and poorly put together YouTube video and some weird comments on various religious blogs and forums. I did find a newspaper article about an Adam McMurtrie (a relative? who knows?) who had been charged by police with more than two dozen traffic violations over the years and was being hauled before the court for using made up documents and plates. So just like all the other freeman stuff, this sounds like irrational legalistic bunkum.

  68. Jim A says:

    Old mate Mark McMurtrie is another energetically deluded chump. In the first place, he seems to have paid $150 for a law dictionary. Companies have to be created according to Commonwealth (federal) law. Road transport companies have to use registered vehicles. It’s hardly the only consderation, but the State and territory governments insist on insurance and get narky when vehicles are not insured (third party personal injury is a compulsory component of registration fees. Then there’s the matter of road tax, another component of registration fees which if unpaid is apt to have those pesky government types pursing their lips in an alarming manner. Drivers have to be licensed. Anyone rash enough to drive for such a madcap enterprise would find him- or herself in hot water with the Highway Patrol toot sweet. And continuing to drive without a licence would sooner or later find the miscreant in gaol. It is interesting how a body of doctrines which are just eye-wash has managed to persuade people to act in a manner contrary to their interests. It mimics religion in that respect. Mark McMurtrie and his like sound to me like jailhouse lawyers, only less coherent, if that’s possible.

  69. Carol says:

    I don’t agree with violence or anarchy of disrespect of other ppl.i do agree with questioning the integrity and agenda of the ppl who create the “laws”that we all are forced to abide by,some of which are clearly set by a finically motivated aganeda,maybe if we didn’t have these governors and royals and law makes living so lavishly and creating laws to obtain money,we wouldn’t be suspicious:I think all most ppl seek is democracy and fairness.
    And for the wealthy to not take from. The poor using ridiculous so said laws to do so.and equal democracy is what ppl should be giving for.

    • Jim A says:

      Carol, if you want a coherent, easy to understand and influential account of ways the rulers screw the ruled you might read The Communist Manifesto, and the critical literature which follows it for the next century and more.

  70. Troy says:

    You may voice your opinion. But in truth, you are a government idol worshiper. The men and women calling themselves government, are nothing more than delusional extortionists who hate God and His Law. Simply rebut the presumption that the Constitutions and laws of any government apply to men and women, and, be sure to produce factual, demonstrable evidence.

    As to your use of the term, “sovereign citizen,” there is no such thing existing anywhere. In truth, there are no citizens of any government. The trick word is “of.” Tell me, can you prove with facts, that just because people are born on a particular continent, in a particular country, within a certain territory, that they mysteriously transform into a citizen. You are a retard, sir (no offense intended). You think that just because someone occupies a place, sitting in a chair, at a particular desk, with paper degrees hanging from the walls of the iffice, of the place wherein this “person” exists at such a particular time, that they gave the authority over the very ones who are said to be those that are the cause for such place, wherein he occupies? Tell me, who are you to think that your mere opinion of certain people matters to them, or anyone else? Even your so-called government has made statements, decrees, orders and judgments that tend to support the substance of the law that these particular people believe in. It is clear, that you are against the republican form of government that expressly guaranteed by the very document that limits the delegated authority of government public servants.

    And who are you to adopt the supposed interpretations of the Constitution, by nine delusional hypocrites, who, for filthy lucre’s sake, perpetuate the fictitious corporations known as government.

    Oh, I see, if the cases cited, are not recent in time they are obscure and inapplicable, and yet our government trolls, calling themselves lawyers, but are merely attorneys, use such late dated decisions, and some how, magically, they shed of their obscurity, and are controlling, as long as they can be manipulated to effect the position of an admitted fiction called the state or federal government.

    Do yourself a favor and shut up. You insult your own intelligence. Better yet, present one so-called court case that supports your twisted logic and distorted reason. If the so-called government is alleged as a party to a particular case, you know or should know that this particular fiction can only exist in one’s mind and not in reality. Just because it is a fact that it exists in some people’s mind, dies not constitute, factually or conclusively, that it exists in animation. Now, poof!!! Be gone.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Hey there. I’m one of the blog’s moderators. I initially deleted your comment because of the insults you used. This is a science and skepticism blog intended for a broad audience, including children, so I don’t really appreciate you calling people idiots merely because you have a radically different opinion about how the world works. Please do not do that.

      Your argument seems to rely strictly on fallacies: if you go to an office are you an employee? No. If you enter my home, are you its resident? No. If you’re born within a territory, are you automatically considered a citizen? In a lot of places, yes. Why? Well, what newborn do you know that can choose to live in Thailand or Qatar or Belize instead of where they’re born? If someone’s not automatically a citizen, what happens between birth and the age at which they consent or decline citizenship? Your analogy makes 0 sense and there’s a lot of good reasons for people to be considered citizens of the place where they live. “Possession,” as in this case, is 9/10 of the law, so if you’re in a place, you possess citizenship.

      One thing is that participating in a democratic government is part of the duty and privileges of citizenship; it’s what we all kind of realize is our part of living in a place together. You probably don’t like a lot of those things. I don’t like that some of my neighbors seem like selfish, lunatic ignoramuses, like the promoters of this and other conspiracy stories. But, as a citizen in a free democracy I accept that I’m going to disagree and dislike some of my neighbors and their decisions and the things done by their representatives in government. I can oppose those things in a variety of ways, such as by law or politics, depending on the situation. One of the worst ways to oppose things I don’t like is by trying to use magic, such as “Now, poof!!! Be gone,” or the nutty mumbo jumbo of Freeman nonsense, like citing law from other countries from hundreds of years ago or inventing alternate realities. That’s lunatic. You begin your screed by saying “You may voice your opinion,” like you’re giving permission. The thing is: no one needs your permission. You’re posting on someone else’s site. YOU need permission by a moderator. If you were saying this in a public space the US is so free that no one will step in to stop you. In basically all other corporatist states that’s not a possibility. That should give you a clue that you’re barking up the wrong tree. In Russia or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or China or wherever dictators reign, you will get locked up (and possibly worse) for saying anything subversive. If you haven’t gotten locked up for writing this nonsense then it almost certainly actually doesn’t threaten anyone in power, not only because you enjoy more freedoms but also because it’s totally bogus garbage. People aren’t typically prosecuted for saying bogus garbage. They’re just avoided because it’s completely obnoxious and a bummer.

      I don’t like a lot of stuff that my government does. I don’t like a lot of the people around me or their decisions. But I haven’t yet resorted to fantasy and trolling. We can have a conversation, but I ask you to please stop posting here if you’re going to act like an accusatory jerk.

  71. lynden says:


    I will not give the true meaning to anyone..
    Unless they answer me with a bit of it’s true meaning behind this given code of pray…

    I AM lynden , I AM who I AM, I AM GOD’S child,
    I AM Sovereign, Our women have been beaten our women have been stood on and SUPPRESSED LONG ENOUGH…
    GOD has declared me to rise up an Declare him as we our an us stand for Sovereign for God alone has granted me free will and THY WILL bedone…For our women an children of new Zealand.
    Catholics created man made fiction LAW of corrupt courts…using the word of GOD
    Everyone swore OATH on the Bible who stood before a COURT OF LAW… SEEMS TO SHOW WHO’S REALLY BREAKING GODS LORE…
    I AM FREE …

  72. Liam Page says:

    Can i be a free man if i have a criminal record ?

  73. Your mom says:

    So, I fake it you are a f*****g communist or a fake Israel wantabe Jew. How can a man that gas never lived in WashingtonDc or on snybifvthe ffucling federal territories be expecyed to to state as such. How is it that we are being told to refer to ourselves as residents, persons etc. When clearly we are not?
    Answer me why we are being forced to participate in helping the piece if shot federal governors in debt when we hold no ducking office in government.
    Answer that a*****e?

  74. Stephen says:

    Michael, you are ignorant beyond my understanding, like most who have failed to do any honest study. First of all there are two constitutions, one organic and one corporate under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment only pertains to government entities but was used on the people fraudulently. The organic constitution tells you very clearly how laws are created using an enactment bill by the legislature. None of the codes or ordainence are law, period as they have not got anything to the contrary. Why don’t you educate yourself on 15 statutes at large and the voluntary nature of statutes before a jurist such as myself publicly humiliates you. Good luck Michael the brain washed slave.

    • Ken S. says:

      Oh, boy, the “corporate constitution” gimmick. No, Stephen, the plain language of the 14th Amendment, as adopted, is quite clear and has been consistently applied by that meaning in federal and state courts. What do you mean when you say “None of the codes or ordainence are law, period as they have not got anything to the contrary?” Contrary to what? The U.S. Code is composed of laws duly passed by Congress under its constitutional authority. The Code of Federal Regulations is similarly composed of rules made under authority granted to federal agencies by enabling acts duly passed by Congress under its constitutional authority. State codes and registers are the same, but instead of Congress, they are made under the state constitutional authority of the respective state’s legislature.

      There is only one U.S. Constitution, and it affects the federal government’s relationship with you and me, not just federal employees. Your claims have no basis in law, history, language, or plain effect.

    • Rob says:

      Strange how none of your legal fantasy seems to actually work in real life courts.

      • Jim A says:

        The way to enjoy this eyewash is not to engage with the dingbats who propound it, but to kick back and have a jolly good laugh at their antics and carry-on, much as one does at the monkey enclosure at the zoo. Life is too short to argue the point with the deranged, however funny.

      • Andrew says:

        There are plenty of egsamples
        Your ignorance does not a world view make.

  75. Ken McDowell says:

    the us FBI have pulled their last trick and will be done away with

  76. Ken McDowell says:

    The FBI are as corrupt as DONALD K TRUMP and the REPUBLICAN party as they are playing NAME GAMES which may be TRUMPS new TV SHOW

  77. Stephanie Bayley says:

    I got stopped by the police a few months ago for driving without insurance

    I was a bit nervous so I was honest and cooperative with them (i think I entered into contract because I was answering their questions not aure)

    now I have a letter here saying goes I am being given charged and I need to please guilty or not guilty

    as a freeman under common law

    how do I respond to this notice that’s been written to me?

    anyone please advice me

  78. chaotys says:

    Mike Rothschild fails to provide any evidence to demonstrate his claims. Meads vs Meads is a another good example of someone making a lot of claims in court that he could not prove.

    Saying that certain tactics do not work and there’s no cases to show. Them working is preposterous when one considers to deny a court jurisdiction results in NO CASE to answer.

    Like wise “Legal” my meaning “Lawful agreement” equally infers that no agreement equals no legality. It is not the freeman who claims the gov has no jurisdiction….it is the gov asserting they DO have jurisdiction. Hence they have the burden of proof.

    You mention the “Cestui Que Vie act” obviously without knowing what it was/did or its relevance today as I have heard of no one going before a court and claiming to be lost at sea!?!?

    It’s the government who claim under said act that the heirs to estates protected in trust under the registrar were “deemed’ lost at sea. If after seven years n o shit no sound of you they would administrate your estate according to the laws of intestacy. This is history not personal opinion or conjecture.

    “The law is absolutely clear on this: Administrative courts have no authority and NO act can be passed to legitimise them due to the constitutional restraints placed upon the monarch during her coronation Oath”. Halsburys laws of England : Halsburys on administrative law 2011 volume 1 (on the first introductory page of a prominent 29 volume series)

    ” In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction and creature of the mind; it can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary having neither actuality or substance is foreclosed from creating or attaining parity with the tangible.
    The legal manifestation of this is that no agency of government, court, officer etc can concern itself with anything more than other artificial persons and the contracts between them”
    SCR 1795 3.Dall 54, 1 School 3,Ed

    As for the right of the individual to offer the contrary intention to engaging in the continuity of a statutorily conferred power and duty I direct you to the “Interpretation act 1987″ section 12 which says:
    ” Where an act (Any act) confers a statutory power, or imposes a statutory duty, it is implied, UNLESS the CONTRARY INTENTION APPEARS, that the power is to be exercised, or the duty performed from time to the as the occasion requires. ”

    Now I could naysayers and spout opinion all day but of course actually going out of your way to prove something your saying is correct bid a lot harder.

    Id be grateful if anyone can provide a definition of “Administrative law” which says it applies to anyone who does not occupy an agency or office of government.

    Instead of arguing and digging people off…..without actually bringing anything to the table other than empty conjecture, try proving to yourself how, when and why various acts/codes etc DO APPLY to you, and you will gain a clearer understanding gof when they don’t, as many who undertake personal study find.

  79. chaotys says:

    A guy by the name of David Ward took on his local authority and won
    ….IN COURT…… signed by an officer of the state using such knowledge. I believe that’s what Mike Rothschild and Noah Dillon wanted?…
    Though they seem to young and immature to actually understand the court verdicts and processes they screwed so badly they want to see, and then reject on account of it causing cognitive dissonance they can’t be added to resolve as this might mean a change to their current perception of reality.

    Main arguments of the case, or rather statements of fact.

    1. Warrington borough council had raised a penalty charge notice against one David Ward. David countered that :
    a) no formal agreement was in place between Mr David Ward and Warrington borough council.
    b) in order for a bill to be raised a formal agreement must exist. Warrington borough council have breached this STATUTORY act
    C) David Ward would be an accomplice to fraud should he pay them

    2. Acts and statutes are granted the force of law via the consent of the governed. (Parliamentary definition of legislation)
    Rather than shout about not consenting, and as the council here making the claim, David Ward simply asked the council to present “the consent of the governed” as a legally presentable fact to demonstrate that Warrington borough council possessed the mandatory legal prerequisites to granting an action of force to the acts or statutes in question.

    He won on flawless logic.
    If Mike Rothschild and Noah Dillon are still struggling after being presented with so much “evidence” and are desperately trying to proffer reasoned opinion then please guys, font get a job in public services. Organic robots incapable of pursuing their own internal thought processes with consistency are already endemic in such sectors.

  80. DV82XL says:

    It astonishes me that this thread is still growing three years in. It also astonishes me that those that believe in this “Freeman on the Land” nonsense will defend it as vigorously as they do in forums where it makes little difference.

    • Jim A says:

      Quite. See my post supra. It’s amazing. I’ve been a lawyer for nearly thirty years. Imagine you’re an electrician. And people come onto the scene insisting the little men in the wires won’t do the required work unless you give them appropriate direction. And imagine how you would bust trying not to read their stuff. That’s how I feel. It’s just amazing. It’s an edumacation in human nature and no mistake 🙂

      • DV82XL says:

        The comparison with electricity is apt. It is highly unlikely idiosyncratic notions of how electricity works would survive direct contact with a live circuit, any more than eccentric interpretations of law would in a court in front of a judge. However few seem willing to reject the opinions of an electrician on DIY wiring projects, (indeed they go out of their way to solicit such) but these OPCA litigants will not entertain any correction to their beliefs regardless of source.

    • Yusef says:


  81. Graham Nicholls says:


    If this is plain English, then no, I don’t understand plain English:

    A guy by the name of David Ward took on his local authority and won
    ….IN COURT…… signed by an officer of the state using such knowledge. I believe that’s what Mike Rothschild and Noah Dillon wanted?…
    Though they seem to young and immature to actually understand the court verdicts and processes they screwed so badly they want to see, and then reject on account of it causing cognitive dissonance they can’t be added to resolve as this might mean a change to their current perception of reality.

    • Ken S. says:

      I don’t believe you. I want to see evidence of “Baron” David Ward’s claims. Without evidence, I can very safely say that he’s lying and/or has no understanding whatsoever of what’s happening or why he’s being evicted by force.

      • paul says:

        I know I know plain English its like these people that are chosen can they please have evidence of the long game and the solution to their problem
        I mean its must be fantasy and in their heads believing in some god that’s going to save em talk about brainwashed wonder whats behind em if its how they treat their god then again they got what they wished for no borders lots of immigration and a lot of muslims that don’t like em so I suppose they wanted to turn earth into hell and wanted to stay here.

  82. Lorna Damon says:

    The act of 1871, go and read up on that for starters

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Have you read it?

    • Ken S. says:

      I’ve done my research. The DC Organic Act of 1871 has been lied about a *lot*. No, it did not replace the U.S. Constitution. Maybe you should do your own research instead of taking the word of scammers and nutjobs. Read the constitution of 1789, then read the DC Organic Act, and see if you can find out why a piece of simple legislation can’t alter or replace the constitution.

  83. seth says:

    you guys bang on about, freedom, the right to do this and the right to do that ect ect ect……..,
    we got no rights at all, none of us !!!! we are controlled at birth we are all told what we can and cannot do by our own government’s, who use a private army called A POLICE FORCE to enforce its will on its citizen’s.

    life on this planet will remain the same ,unless the masses rise up against our tyrannical government’s.
    all the words in the word mean nothing!!!!.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      How can “the masses rise up” if they’re controlled from birth? Doesn’t that mean that your comment is the result of mind control? Or do you actually have freedom and rights and free will?

  84. paul says:

    I bet you cant wait for the beach them old wishes conspiracy theories of revenge etc next you will be telling us its a white conspiracy to get rid of Israel after all they are chosen and they are going to prove it to us all they have the end game and they know it all who would want to convert them was it all a dream? what a way to treat your(ha ha) god who is going to save you? you are easy to forget what joke think about? no plans the ball is in your j court no apology for the grammar
    many questions why etc etc because you have something that you will never see enjoy your power mka ultra

  85. Simon Edwards says:

    If there is nothing to this FOTL stuff….why then do they not arrest them in the courts when they do the court take over?
    if have also seen FOTL terminology used on the government side…

    • Noah Dillon says:

      I don’t know what the first part means.

      The second part is backwards: FOTL is legal mumbo jumbo that misuses legal terms, rather than the law using FOTL terms.

  86. Davis says:

    Well done. You have written a very interesting article. On the face of it you appear to completely debunk the FMOL stance.

    However, I would love to debate it with you as there’s little in depth substance to your opinions. You are obviously pro government and against people having rights or freedoms.

    It’s ironic your name is Rothschild.

    You fail to balance your article with anything from the opposing position and are therefore misleading your readers.

    I could give counter examples for every claim you make.

    But let’s start with a fact you don’t mention. The legal system has its own language, called legalease. The public on the whole neither understands it, speak it and for most, they don’t even know that there is a different language.

    So the legal system starts from a position of deception. And you criticise people who want no part of that!

    You use the word laws. But governments make no laws. They make rules, statutes, acts and policies etc.

    But you and others call them laws. Show me where they are in their legislative text actually called law.

    In the UK like America administrative hearings are used in buildings referred to as courts. However, according to Halsburys there is no place for administrative courts in England and no law can be passed to legitimise them.”

    This is because of the constraints placed upon the queen at her coronation oath.

    Are you going to argue with Halsburys?

    I could go on for ever but let’s just consider one final and very different point. Magna Carta. This was a treaty not a law and it predates parliament. As such it cannnot be repealed.

    Anyway, in conclusion I’m not a fmol but I do agree with some of their principals and it’s very clear that governments of today have become too powerful and are milking the people dry for their own gains.

    There is no genuine just law anymore. It’s been corrupted and thus is evident in case after case where people lose against corporations day in day out.

    The mortgage scandal a case in point. Fraud on a mass scale and bankers escaping jail for acts you or I would be imprisoned for in a heartbeat!

    Keep blogging against the people and see how you feel if a family member or close friend falls prey to the corrupt system. Then again I don’t know you so you might really be from “the” Rothchild family. In which case your position would be if no surprise!

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Dismissing legal nonsense doesn’t mean you’re pro-government and anti-freedom. It means you’re anti-nonsense. Refusing to give credence to gibberish doesn’t do a disservice to readers, and giving it an airing doesn’t give fair balance to the issue. Should we listen attentively to people who claim the Earth is flat? No. It would be a waste of time.

      To claim that “legalese,” which is a pejorative, is deceptive is silly. It’s like calling Eskimo deceptive for the mere reason that you can’t speak it. Legal terms tend to have very closely defined meanings, whereas common speech doesn’t. Why is that harmful? You can learn and look up the meanings. That’s what people who go to law school do. You could even learn it yourself.

      Where does it say that lawmakers make laws? Everywhere. If a bill is passed by the legislature and executive, it becomes law. Any school kid knows this: The bill is the text of the statute, the law is its enactment and enforcement. It’s like the difference between a country and a government; they are not the same but they have a close relation. You should be able to figure that out.

      I’m going to stop there. A lot of this seems to stem from pretty simple misconceptions about terms. You should just consult a dictionary and an encyclopedia.

  87. Freeman says:

    Hi gang!
    I just wanted to mention to those of you harping on Mr. Rothchild’s name:
    My legal name is Freeman.
    And I think you are idiots!

  88. Troy says:

    Lawyer (lol). That’s funny. Not enough integrity to show your name…that should tell you much Felipe. Apparently, this “lawyer,” is on of those delusional retards, who fails to identify with their own hypocrisy. Is it not a maxim of law that everyone is presumed to know it? And the so-called “attorney [at] law,” has no right to intend to sue one of the people for the practice of law. (Just ask Schware). The Sixth Amend. and every state constitution acknowledges the security of an accused’s right to defend “person, houses papers and effects” against accusations leveled against him/her. So stop, Mr./Ms. Lawyer with your lying and deceits. You ‘persons’ commit FRAUD on the courts of North America every single day, and that without conscience (seared as with a hot iron)… Now lets take a look at some of “Lawyers” babbling inanities:

    I know all that copypasta must have seemed very legalistic and convincing to you when you read it, but if you had the proper education and framework, you would understand it in no way proves what you think it does. I have had the benefit of a doctorate of jurisprudence, although it is possible to self-study law if you use the right resources and commit a lot of time. You have clearly done neither, and your lack of understanding is glaring.”

    [Yet this is the same “copypasta” (is that even a word?) you supposedly studied in so-called “law school,” yes? Check them out, they are actually cases. Moreover, Felipe is not talking about legalities, sir, he’s talking about the law. That fiction you call law is nothing but corporate rules and regulations that only has the “force of law” by consent. READ the constitution, people have the unlimited right (not privilege) to contract. Tell me lawyer, have you ever heard of the “adhesion contract” nonsense? Your statutes, codes, rules and regulations are nothing more than arbitrary communist jargon. A cabal of egotistical psychopaths who have show of godliness but deny the power thereof. Liars and deceivers. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT YOUR STATUTORY FICTION LAW ACTUALLY APPLIES TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE!!! (you do know what defines evidence don’t you, “Lawyer.”]

    1- The right to travel does not mean the right to travel without regulation or restriction. It is not *your* feeling of what that right should encompass that is important, but rather that of the courts. The courts have held that state laws and regulations do *not* violate your right to travel. If they did, they would have been struck down.

    [First, if you can, show me in the constitutions where it is expressly stated that state or federal governments may “restrict” peoples right to drive their cars from point A to point B by licensing or any other limitation. Remember, the constitution is a limitation on government and not the people who give it power. Second, show me in the constitutions where it is expressly stated that state or federal courts have been delegated power to interpret them (constitutions). Third, you may need a reality check, delusional one, judges are not the court and neither are courts judges! Do you really need a lesson on this logic? Fourth, please tell me, if you can, under what constitutional jurisdiction, concerning judicial power, do these so-called “traffic laws” fall under? Fifth, please inform us how a piece of paper, wrapped in plastic, is going to actually regulate the way in which people use their property (cars) on the public highways? When you are able to answer these threshold questions concerning jurisdiction with sound reason supported by facts and not your legal theory gods’ “interpretation,” let me know. And please, do stay on topic… Case law (no such thing, actually, is welcome. I will love dissecting them). Would you like to keep playing this non-factual theoretical game? Here is a case on point, dealing with state policing power to control an individual by the use statutory fiction law:

    “The argument made in support of the first branch of this proposition, briefly stated, is that, in the implied compact between the State and the citizen, certain rights are reserved by the latter which are guarantied by the constitutional provision protecting persons against being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and with which the State cannot interfere; that among those rights is that of manufacturing for one’s use either food or drink; and that, while, according to the doctrines of the commune, the State may control the tastes, appetites, habits, dress, food, and drink of the people, our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, does not claim to control him except as to his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself. It will be observed that the proposition, and the argument made in support of it, equally concede that the right to manufacture drink for one’s personal use is subject to the condition that such manufacture does not endanger or affect the rights of others. If such manufacture does prejudicially affect the rights and interests of the community, it follows from the very premises stated that society has the power to protect itself by legislation against the injurious consequences of that business. As was said in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 124, while power does not exist with the whole people to control rights that are purely and exclusively private, Government may require “each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another.” (Mulger v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660) Now you see, I’ve been fair in my choice of your case-law, pertaining to language. And, I might conclude by saying, I don’t give two cents about the theory mixed in with particular cite. And, I don’t give one cent about what you consider to be my “feeling” of what my rights are. Nor do I give a damn about your academic accolades. (As if tooting your own horn makes more knowledgable of what can merely be accomplished with a little common sense. smh. You people are narcissistic terrorists, thinking you have some title of nobility concerning social status. More like depraved indifference in slave trafficking… Suppose you agreed with the Dredd Scott decision as well. Thinking certain people were lesser than human beings, premised on your delusional theory of social status…

    2 – The right to travel is not in the constitution. It has been interpreted by the courts, and thus is subject to revision by the courts.

    [You’ll need to corroborate your “interpretation” malarchy with the language of the constitutions, which by the way, are written in the light of the Common Law (Wong Kim Ark). Perhaps you should peruse the case of U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-760 (1965)… Do take note of the cases cited therein, especially, The Passenger Cases and Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (concurring opinion).

    3- It is very vital to SHEPHARDIZE your cases. Case citations are meaningless without the correct follow-though. Subsequent court decisions may overturn in part, narrow, or clarify prior holdings. It is clear you have not done this here, and are citing cases without checking whether the are good law and represent the current law of the land.

    [None of the cases cited by either Felipe or myself have been contradicted on the points being drawn from them, or in pertinent part. Save that game for one of your ignorant victims, you exploit for making merchandise out of them. (2 Pet. 2:3, 18). What poisonous snakes you deceivers are!!!]

    4- The ability to interpret the law is a skill honed with careful practice. You do not posess this skill. A lot of your conclusions are indeed gibberish.

    [Cease and desist with your intimidation nonsense, idol worshiping troll. People have the right to reason for themselves what amount of consent they will give to someone else’s logic or theory. And, I might add, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitutions to the contrary. Indeed, there is no language found anywhere in any constitution of these United States (Fiction) to the contrary. People do not voluntarily give up their God-given rights to Life, Liberty, Property, or to Pursue Happiness, you intelligent idiot. (I’m being nice!!!)

    5 – Blacks law dictionary is not law. Had you undertaken any serious study of the law, you would know that this is considered parol evidence, disfavored and admissible only after other avenues of interpretation have been explored. A dictionary can never make law, nor can it override the meaning defined within a law.

    [What a law dictionary is supposed to do is define terms used under law in their ordinary sense. ORDINARY, meaning common sense, manipulator!!! But we do see how you persons (supposedly government public servants…which more fiction language) stealthily encroached upon the rights of the people over the years, and in this regard, later versions of law dictionaries intended progressively change, even more, the the Common Law by your legal definitions (legalese). For now we see that a “person” is not so much a human being, though it may continue to so pertain, but now fictions are given the appellation that once, by antiquity, solely applied to persons of People (or physical bodies of flesh and blood.) We also see you people have convoluted the term “State” which, according to the Constitution, meant a group of people occupying or inhibiting a certain territory of land. Deceivers?]

    6- You have utterly failed to do what you set out to – prove that someone has prevailed with these arguments. You cut and paste reasons you think someone *should* but there are good reasons they have failed. While they may look good to you, they will not impress a judge, because they are ultimately a bunch of gibberish cobbled together with things that sound good to someone who has not bothered to understand how the law really works.

    Reading websites and books that attempt to shore up your confirmation bias is not education. Reinforcing your pseudolegal beliefs is not learning the law. Also, you clearly don’t know what pseudoscience is, as you are using the word all wrong.

    If you are serious about learning these things, I suggest you go to the library and get a book written by Lawrence Tribe or Charles Fried. If you are not willing to undertake serious study, I suggest you not try to educate others as to what the “real” law is. You are wholly unqualified.

  89. Jay says:

    Hello Fellow Natural Souls and Freemen and Women, It is apparent by this young mans article that he is young and naive. He is a product of the “matrix” and doesn’t even believe that the rabbit hole exist. Give him more time and perhaps as he begins to experience the choke hold that government, those private for profit corporation have around his neck he will swallow I think its the blue pill and awaken. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can’t argue with ignorance.

    It has a life of its own. Godspeed to all of us who stand for righteousness….

    • Noah Dillon says:

      It’s funny that the “blue pill” metaphor was brought to you by several of the largest private for-profit entertainment companies on Earth. And you bought the marketing!

  90. leeman says:

    it does say on the front page of the mentioned document that it is unofficial and all the names have been removed from the doc. lending weight to the theory that the document is false. So we cant even prove the authenicity of the document.It is my belief that this document is an attempt to give ppl the false notion that they have no rights and must continue to consent to statutory law .All the while we know this is how big fatcat bankers and judges are using freeman on the land principal to escape the legal justice systems just look at hillary clinton anyone else would be in prison and tony blair and most of them . Do not allow them to get awaywith it
    fatcat bankers and judges have been using the freeman on the land principal to escape

    • Noah Dillon says:

      That’s a misinterpretation. Names have been redacted to protect people’s personal information. This is an unofficial version of a document for the public. If you were in court, you’d probably not want your private information shared publicly. As a citizen, it’s good for people to have open access to court records because it makes sure that the legal system is transparent and accountable. I can’t follow the rest of your comment. It looks like nonsense to me. I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Judges and bankers do what? Escape what?

    • Ken S. says:

      Nobody needs your consent to execute statute law. The idea of statutes as contracts at law is complete nonsense unsupported by the entire history of human government in general and common law in particular.

  91. cracka beater says:

    what a cracka this guy is.

  92. william says:

    There are nuts out there and jibbersh but somewhere in the middle are some real and intelligent men and women who are sounding an alarm telling American’s look around something real is going on and its going to affect you and your family children and grandchildren if we don’t get control back,ask yourself, if the state can be the injured party, and they make the rules and define the laws,can change the meaning of words at will ,(Who are we) but slaves

    • Noah Dillon says:

      There’s a huge difference between people pointing out that government has problems and people claiming that you don’t need a driver’s license and you can get out of jail free by reciting weird, irrelevant portions of pre-modern English law.

  93. Langkilde101 says:

    As the PRESENT FORM (LIFE) and not the RE PRESENT (STATE OWNED NAME) I am free.. my first breath when I landed into my mother’s arms, I am of the land and the land is of me.. Knot the BERTH maritime legalis STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES water law.. it is a farce from the AUTHORity who write the book called I own you. They do not and never have.. In comparison to the corrupt disgusting dark powers that be in the form of GOVERN MINTS, the freeman is light in the dark.. we must not do harm to any living breathing seeing eating lifeform. Money has no place in life it cannot be eaten and it cannot grow.. it is used to create force and power and to deny the human right to life which is good food clean water heat to keep warm clothing… The right to love live and laugh.. to just be.. The busyness world drains the life from you.. they have no power.. unless you give it.. and I do not..

    • Langkilde101 says:

      The root word of Legal is LEGALIS Latin. . (Innis sonas ) if it sounds the same it is.. LEGALIS sounds like LEGLESS to me.. And the State capital AUTHORity are absolutely legless.. The judge in the caught house sits and is dressed in black. He RE PRESENTS the BLACK INK CORPSE A RATION (incorparation) the written words on the form of payper in black ink spell t with CAPITAL LETTERS CHAR/ACTOR, sentences and charges.. The unlawfool judge and unlawfool lawyers talk between each other because you are not alive.they are deciding what to do with your CHAR/ACTOR.. they cannot acknowledge that you are present in your life form. . They are sentencing your shadow payper form (RE PRESENT) and forcing your lifeform (PRESENT) to live out their punishment.. and this is absolutely UNLAWFUL. .. The only law and lay of the land is the TAIN LAW in the BIBLE.. This precedents the legalis unlawful system in power at the moment.. The powers in power are the disgusting scab on the land.. and must be ousted as the corrupt money hungry greed pain and suffering folks that they are.. we are all equal. No one life is better or more important than another life.. we must go back to this..AND we will most assuredly…

  94. Yusef says:

    You are very illiterate when it comes to the entirety of the law. You only know statutory law and do not understand the full extent of its application or how jurisdiction is obtained.

    A typical example of an individual who is posturing himself as knowledgeable, but publicly demonstrates just how totally lost he is as it relates to Public and Private law.

  95. Paul says:

    Thankyou for your well witten article, Mike. I had a friend that had become involved with this garbage as a way out of paying his taxes. It didn’t work for him. Recently I met another guy who started to explain to me about the name thing and straw men and who plans on using freeman tactics in court to explain why he had no insurance on his car while out driving around. Good luck to him. I didn’t bother to talk him out of it. He will learn the hard way.

  96. Ben says:

    Your comments have no real proof why should we listen to you???

  97. Simon Edwards says:

    i’m still on the fence on all this , i’m listening to what you guys are saying and to be honest neither side is giving any kind of concrete evidence of why their reasoning is correct
    If you search for “Council Tax Takedown” on youtube there is a video of someone using this FOTL stuff in court , and he gets the magistrates to abandon court , essentially he takes over the whole proceedings.
    My questions is , if FOTL is complete hocus , how was he able to do this?
    Why was he not arrested or at the very least charged with contempt?
    why did the magistrate refuse to give his oath ?

    • Noah Dillon says:

      There are a lot of links and demonstrable evidence in this essay and in the comment thread. So there’s concrete evidence.

      As for the video: I’m not sure which one you mean. I’ve looked at a bunch of these videos and often they show proceedings ground to a halt because the person in court is being belligerent and aggressive and starting a shouting match with the judge using a bunch of gibberish. These arguments are not allowed in court because they are nonsense. The people who try to use them don’t realize they’re nonsense, and trying to explain why they’re nonsense in the course of attempting to resolve a small traffic ticket fine is not worth anyone’s time. It’s really abusive and they’re not getting anywhere on the merits of their arguments. As far as I know, judges have slapped the accused with contempt charges or proceeded in some other fashion. But no one wins with these arguments because they don’t make any sense and are complete misunderstandings of the law.

      Look: in the US, everyone is granted the absolute right of legal defense in a criminal trial. If this stuff worked, defense lawyers could make a huge amount of money utilizing these arguments in court. Why don’t they? Because these arguments do not work. They treat words like magic.

      If you’d like more information, I would refer you to this:
      In addition to a clear explanation with more citations explaining why this is FOTL stuff is bogus, at the bottom there’s a long list of eight years’ worth of notable cases in which people have tried to use it and have been totally unsuccessful.

      If you’re still on the fence, I’d be curious to know what would convince you that this FOTL stuff is not real.

  98. Thomas says:

    How many biased and unsubstantiated accusations and presumptions does it take for a reader of any substance to determine that the writer has an agenda, one which will be pushed with little regard for the truth…an accusation made as a closing statement in an effort to discredit others…ironic, right.

    So is it up to the reader to believe that folks who stand up for the rights are dishonest based upon your hearsay? Or is it up to the reader to see it as such

    • Knows Nothing says:

      I merely had to read the name of the author, whether by chance or true relation, the author is a Rothschild and it is clear that he/she/it shares the views with the tyrant family.

      • Noah Dillon says:

        Yes, because all people who share the same last name believe all the same things, especially those things that are attributed to them by anonymous sources online. And you can know this simply by reading their name and ignoring everything else that doesn’t fit that assumption. You are so clever!

  99. Marlin says:

    The law though is whatever the police and judge decide that way. I’d like to hear the Freeman on the Land explain how their techniques will work in North Korea, China, Cuba, or some other dictatorship.

    Quote from article, “I would say that “MIKE ROTHSCHILD” is my government-assigned strawman identity, and that “Mike Rothschild” is my God-given flesh and blood identity, which I can legally obscure by adding in meaningless identifiers or punctuation (ie, declaring myself to be “Mike:Rothschild” or “Mike of the family Rothschild.””

    The officer would go, “Oh you’re from that powerful banking family who owns The Federal Reserve and very US dollar is an IOU to your family. Well you’re above the law then so you’re free to go.”

    And then if you tell him you just have that same last name but aren’t super rich the cop says, “Oh you’re poor. Well then off to jail.”

    For example Jared Fogle and Jeffrey Epstein (both jews so no different ethnic treatment) did the same crime and Epstein because of his connection with the Clintons got away with it and Fogle is in prison.

  100. Spencer says:

    Views often held by those who smoke too much cannabis and consume other illegal mind altering substances. “Right on man!”

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Seems to paint with too broad a brush. I’ve never known anyone who says anything like this nonsense, though I do know a lot who smoke way too much cannabis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *