Talk:Freeman on the land/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Plural

Shouldn't it be "freemen"? Or these people object to spelling, too? --ZooGuard (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They usually refer to the concept as a whole in the singular, though they will use the plural freemen when required. Ydam (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where law comes from

We say:

• Law actually derives from force and authority.

This is certainly true in an ultimate sense, but in the UK I would suggest that that force and authority is directed by parliament who have that force and authority at their discretion. Parliament also has the authority to remove, tidy up, clarify or do whatever else it likes to case law when it creates statues. It trumps Common Law.
At least that is my impression. I would include this in the article but it reads as though it has been written by somebody who may know more than me so I'm reluctant to put my fingers in it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but the problem is that freemen don't recognise the authority of parliment, they only recognise their own version of common law. But I like your suggestion as it does expand on the the reality. Please feel free to amend. I'd very much appreciate others input on this article. Reserching it is really hard and painful work. Ydam (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I've added something along those lines. Feel free to chop it about.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, I like the ' means and the duty to use force ', it's way more erudite than what I had. Ydam (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. But I'm afraid that that has just about plumbed the depths of my knowledge. I had to prepare something once on the differences between the Spanish and English legal systems and remembered some of the common law stuff.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Prufredin'

This is a great article, but reads like it was dictated to a million monkeys with typewriters. I tried having a hack at copyediting this thing before, but after a while my head started to hurt. Could others please have a go? Cleaning up paragraphs at a time if you can't cope with a section at a time - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree - there are points where I genuinely don't understand what's being said. Specific references (ie "A is the case [ref]) would help a lot here, but I find the prospect of trudging through that nonsense rather disheartening. Webbtje (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Difference from "sovereign citizen"?

What exactly is the difference between the two "movements"? They seem to share a lot of claims/beliefs ("strawman", weird names, admiralty law, etc.) --ZooGuard (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FMOTL seems to be more a Canadian/British thing. They do share a lot of ideas as this has obviously been influenced by the earlier American ideas. FMOTL has lost the fringes on flag nonsense though evidence seems to be more focused on magna carta and other historical British texts as well as various events in British history. The differences are mostly in the minutiae of the ideas. The two movements and their communities are quite distinct though. Ydam (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

i think only original americans and aboriginals are sovereign, the freemen are thought who just "decide" to be free 68.46.19.38 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A possibly profound - though possibly incomprehensible - comment from our IP editor.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

sovereign citizen is the term used by the military induatrial complex so they can mix up truth and bullshit for an audience and not let on where they can hear it from the horses mouth.

by the way this whole article is completely inconsistent with what freemen are about. its just an attack on the mythological freeman that critics have created and has little bearing on real freemen.

MP's Letter

I've removed the following from the article again 'This is corroborated by a UK MP who confirms that we all have a write to revoke our consent to be governed per se (see MP letter confirming right to revoke consent to be governed for redacted copy of letter)'

The source provided actually states the complete opposite.

“”when we are considering individuals who elect not to pay income tax, council tax, driving licenses, passports etc, this is clearly different. No one is above the law and refusing to pay such taxes is clearly wrong ...

I don't know how anyone could possible take this as evidence that supports a right to not pay council tax, obey laws etc... given how explicit it is about it. Perhaps the author could explain? Ydam (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely the end point of this is a Hobbesean state of nature - a war of all against all where life is nasty, brutish and short?

If these people wish to re-enact outlawry, then they have to face the consequences of outlawry. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bronze

This warrants a bronze brain for sheer comprehensiveness and does get the idea across. Objections? - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Тy^Talk. 14:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this one might be worth bumping up, actually. ADK^{...I'll vomit your gas tank!} 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Um... US freemen?

Shouldn't there be at least some coverage of the American version? EVDebs (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We have sovereign citizen. I was asking the same thing some time ago - the movements' beliefs overlap to some degree.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, American sovereigns use this terminology explicitly. EVDebs (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

on the behalf of some guy that felt liek inserting this into the article instead of the talk page

Interesting reading and obviously has a bias towards "nutty Freeman". This is true with several others who like to debunk this, or debunk these concepts. To help keep chains on its easy to proclaim "misconceptions" or "insanity" or any other various of fear mongering words. I see no FREEMAN or living soul abusing others with such terminology. Obviously as per this famous saying. "Tell someone a lie and they become angry. Tell them the TRUTH and they become FURIOS." Go look up that quote yourselves.

-

- As to wins where are the wins on this... Go google Ontario Farmer George HUGH and his fight for his right to sell raw organic foods directly to us consumers, and his defense. Interesting that they tried to pin "psychiatric" issues and problems, and yet after finally getting the information "notarized" and verified by the actual GOVERNMENT's own policies, words and acts, he is released and all charges dropped. This reminds me of UFO's, oh by the way the writers of this "definition" or wiki have graciously left this as "open" or unprovable due to how they've catagorized the real evidence required in regards to UFO's. Reality is they exist and many (ex) government employees have stated their existance and the admittance to such, the most recent an EX Canadian Goverment Defense Minister, from his speach at a UFO conference (go look that up too, this is posted as a preamble who writes the news of today you think the US government does not control it like CHINA admittedly does). Back to George Hugh; much of his first arrest was "posted" in the media (newspaper, television, radio), yet after that nothing was ever posted of his win. One wonder's why they would post the arrest but not the acquitals or the TRUTH. The best duty a man can preform for his nation is to "Question the Government" (and go look that quote up too).

-

- Believe (BELIE - BE LIE F ), go look up your own words people in the dictionary, I challenge you to educate yourself and be less ignorant (that means lacking knowledge by the way, oh and ignorance is no excuse to break the LAW). As written in the 1800's "The pen is mightier than the sword.", and any induced war we see today is not created from reality but fiction. Iraq and the weapons of (what) mass destruction as so claimed by the US president (oh lets not talk about this and let it go away).-209.87.255.21‎

you sound like Jared Lee Loughner. Just sayin'. Doesn't make your argument invalid, of course...--Brxbrx (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discourse of the BoN

`who-ever wrote this is intellectually negligent on several levels, first, CAPITUS MAXIMUS DEMUNITIO still stands today in england, see for yourself, so yeah, CAPS DO HAVE MEANING. Secondly, if this was all B.S i think stories like the 500 that stormed the birkendhead court, (albiet a few were arrested, 1 evening serving 14 days in prison under the name of Detainee B) DID infact arrest a judge under treason, perversion and fraud, THEN a local MP states for people not to get the "wrong idea" - its pure and simple, a LAWFUL JUDGE "okayed" that a person is infact a corporate entity see for yourself "roger hayes, birkendhead court" ` - Daggle

• I think we really should have a requirement that whatever is written here is intelligible. EVDebs (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to RationalWiki:best of the crazy perhaps? Тy^Talk. 16:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Was this entry written by the News Of The World or similar tabloid jingoist? I would hope that the topic would be written as fact and not in a derisory, insulting manner.^{— Unsigned, by: TruckTone / talk / contribs}

Why?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

CAPITUS MAXIMUS DEMUNITIO was a rule of Roman Law. It is defined in Justinian's Institutes, 1.16/1.XVI: "De Capitus Minutione", or "Change of Station" or "Status-Loss" in English. There were three degrees of status loss: first - "Maxima" - the loss of liberty and citizenship; second - "Minor" - loss of citizenship but not liberty; and third - "Minima" - loss, or change, of personal standing with no effect on liberty or citizenship. None of them had anything whatever to do with the way the name was written - hell, the Romans didn't even have lower case! And it has NEVER, ever, been a part of English law. The full (text of the original Roman law, in English, is here: [2]. 83.217.173.196 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is covered in Strawman theory - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Extensive quotes

There are two sections where the quotation is extensive. Could I suggest shifting them to a "bibliography" or "additional resources" page in the essay or template space and then linking to those as a reference. Without detailed side-by-side commentary their inclusion is excessive. Merely citing "Magna Carta, clause 61" or whatever should be sufficient. ADK^{...I'll coach your peach!} 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Those two sections are excessive and will not be read.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the huge quote completely - it doesn't actually do anything at all, and the section is much more comprehensible without it - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

from page

"In the pursuit of fairness I would advise caution when reading the content below, which in many cases, is false. Many of our so-called "Laws" are indeed not actually laws but acts and statutes, and since awareness of the legal system amongst the population has been raised in recent years, the public have been steadily appraised, i.e. of what laws do actually apply to us, and, more importantly those that do not. Especially noteworthy are those regarding commonly-held myths regarding the use (and flagrant mis-use) surrounding certain powers i.e , that the police have, or more importantly, do not have. Thanks to personal cameras and the internet many individual cases are now backed up with proven evidence posted on YouTube and other sources on the internet. "Corporate Law" is an actuality and is used against those that do not come under its juristiction and is not as this article claims, "Pseudo Law" or "Woo". In the real world we now have evidence and because many individuals are raising awareness have tried this knowledge and have found it to be the truth. Please note also that there is a strong likelyhood that this article is written by those most in threat by the common use of this new-knowledge i.e. the legal profession, whose high earnings, and mystique are now threatened as never before in history.

Only last month I quizzed a legal professional about the Maritime Admiralty and Common Law and the rising use of this knowledge, and he openly admitted that, "it is the biggest challenge to our profession that there has ever been" I ask only that you remember this before reading the articles below, and take nothing as read, but check it out for yourselves, because as the saying goes, "Knowledge is Power." And, ask yourselves, if it is indeed, "Psudeo-Law" or "woo" why then does the following articles need to insult or ridicule as they do? "

Some guy left this on the page, moved here. Ty^talk 11:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow- who'd have thought it?

• "Please note also that there is a strong likelyhood that this article is written by those most in threat by the common use of this new-knowledge i.e. the legal profession, whose high earnings, and mystique are now threatened as never before in history."

OK guys. He's found out. We are all really highly-paid lawyers and the whole of the rest of the site is a cover for this article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one lawyer here that I know of, and I doubt he's paid much--68.230.64.189 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Nutty Roux: Don't forget AmesG/Caius! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that if the freemen on the land had their way, the lawyers would make a killing: lawsuits would multiply as we tried to apply solely common law (no statutes) to a modern, industrial society. Godspeed (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been cited

Looks like after this weeks hoo-ha in the guardian this article's gathered some notable attention

• http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/guardian-commentisfree-post-freeman-of-the-la Ben Goldacre
• UK human rights blog
• Guardian

^{— Unsigned, by: Ydam / talk / contribs}

Woohoo! Sam ^Tally-ho! 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Twas I wot tweeted Ben Goldacre about RW. Scream!! (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit worrying how this particular form of nuttiness seems to be spreading though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd think they'd cut it out after they've seen it doesn't work. It's not like homeopathy, there's no placebo effect for court cases--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More fans

[3] We're "a horrible piece of establishment propaganda" - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO!!! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

“”These types of sites are generally set up by the following types of people: They have been banned from here or other frreman sites and thus get their arses out. Got themselves into trouble when following the freeman route because they didnt research properly. Government agencies.

Why are cranks always so self-centered? "Oh, you're evilutionists, you must have been banned from Creation Wiki!!" "Oh, you hate Islamic Awakening, you must be racists!!" "You don't like Shieldwall, therefore you're in the pocket of Evil Muslims!!!" - I'm not sure what's funnier: the self-centeredness or the incompatibility of all of these accusations together. ^sshole 14:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that thread really is a "must read". Apparently we're "government sponsored"! There's lots of other wonderful nuttiness as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Got themselves into trouble when following the freeman route because they didnt research properly Too bad they don't have any success stories.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although, we may want to get to work on the Electric Universe article--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I do also love (beyond what ADK says) how they always find this "one guy who did amazing unbiased research... which proves exactly what we've been saying". "this guy here knows how to write a real research paper". heh. Though looking at other posts, I'm gussing at least one if not two of these guys are poes.--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Challenge box

It occurs to me that, if freemen are coming to this page, then they need a challenge box near or at the top. Saying something like:

“”If you are a freeman or believe in this stuff then you are cordially invited to give ONE instance of Freeman arguments being successfully deployed in a court of law. Please use the article talk page "here"

Perhaps other articles would benefit from similar challenges.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. We have an entire "challenge articles" cat that never really reached full potential. ^theist 00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A more general "please bring objections and examples of this ever, ever working to the talk page" would be a good idea IMO. What's a suitable template? - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Added, with the shiny new Template:Challenge. Let's see if this flies - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Silver?

Just gave this a polish and brush-up. What's holding it back from silver? - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly references for saying it doesn't work. There are plenty of individual cases but the more overarching references to "freemen" are lacking slightly. ^bomination 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like asking for proof of a negative. What would be an example of such a reference? What sort of thing are you thinking of? - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like a review article rather than a case study. Unless, of course, this RW article is one of the best on the internet for that sort of thing, I know it's high ranking on Google for example. Other than that, I don't have any major objections to promoting it right now. ^narchist 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We're the go-to page on teh intarweb for these bozos. Sliver it is! - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of looking around gives us multiple references. What more does it need? Illustrations of some type?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Corporation / Birth certificate.

We here in canada like to use your security exchange commission to outline the existence of our corporation and that it conducts business like one. Please place a reference in that section.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000230098&owner=include&count=40

Also evidence that the birth certificate is a financial instrument. Here in B.C. the terms "revenue receipt" and "for treasury use only" can be found on our birth certificates. B.C. Canada http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/modemfucker/?action=view&current=birthcertificate.jpg

Please update the birth certificate section as well. These are not claims outside of fact and a "rational wiki" should provide evidence for the rational mind.^{— Unsigned, by: 70.70.51.106 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

hah, my first use of the template.--GodotEn live 19:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is New Year, time to start the drinking games! ^moral 19:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I don't actually understand what is being asked... ^theist 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They want us to add that Canada really is a national corporation, because of some stuff on Canadian birth certificates. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Bunchofnumbers: The "revenue receipt" is just in case parents want a refund on their baby :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More likely teh Jooish bankstahs trying to sell us into debt slavery as usual. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Textbook false analogy fallacy: Object A has property X, Object B has property X, therefore Object A and Object B are the same thing. ^{d hominem} 14:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is so!

Posted in article by 94.195.10.66:

The UK plc Ltd IS a corporation, as are all town councils, county councils and public bodies within the UK. If you don't believe this is so, I suggest you contact the secretary of any of these, or look them up in the relevant lists held by HMG officers and find yourself proven wrong!

The rest, I can not know how you can suggest that courts and governments are always SO right and rebellious people are so wrong. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.195.10.66 / talk / contribs}

With regard to the first part - if so, so what?

With regard to the second part - governments make laws and courts interpret them. Whatever your personal (possibly wacky) opinion of what "should" happen governments and the courts have the ability to define what is right.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And while it has lots of problems (as with anything we could likely invent), it works pretty well. Govt makes laws, courts interpret them in the context of the governing rules of that country, and the people say "sure" or "not sure" by re-electing officials. Mind you, i hate the 2-party system, and think politics gets in the way of good governing and good courts all the time. And I think, not living under one, parliament might be a better system - even with all those flaws, what the US has works pretty well. Besides, the US courts have said corporations are persons, so it's all good.--GodotEn live 17:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, BoN, the courts decide what the law is. (At least that's the case in the United States. Given the common law history of the UK, it should be similar, although my understanding is that the UK Supreme Court does not have the full power of judicial review that we have in the US; that shouldn't, however, impact much.) EVDebs (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Invalidating the cause

This edit is something that I'm in confused agreement/disagreement with. It's certainly true that breaking a law that is wrong is still a valid and moral choice, but is it always the case with this Freemen gumph? I.e., is a comparison to Ghandi just emotive rhetorical bullshit rather than valid? This is something that we can only subjectively see (one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist) or with hindsight (witches were executed under the laws of the time). Many of the failed freemen cases seem to be people demanding that the law doesn't apply to them "just because", not because they're fighting a noble cause. ^moral 14:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that "the law" is defined by the state. The state (in a democracy) is given power by the majority of the people who vote for it. So while you may want to avoid being governed by the democratically elected state this is not really a "legal" option. I accept that the situation in dictatorships could be different.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether "the people" consent to it is probably a good proxy measure of legitimacy, but that doesn't completely guarantee all laws being entirely justified. Discrimination and segregation continued (and arguably still has an effect) even long after most developed countries embraced democracy. A proxy, perhaps, but not a litmus test. ^{d hominem} 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I disagree. In all governments "the law" is decided by the government. In many states the law is then interpreted by the courts. In progressive states all this is legitimised by an electoral process.

But even in a non-democratic state "the law" is defined by the government.

In a democratic state you may (in theory) argue against the law, get elected and change it; in a non-democratic one you may argue against it and go to jail. But at the end of the day "the law" is not defined by moral legitimacy but by power. Twas always thus.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The freeman arguments are not entirely lacking in moral force: that the law is a damnable imposition by default is a defensible position. It's their approach that is made entirely of magic beans and crack - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The main problem I have with fotl is that is isin't sold nor presented to people as a cause or even as a moral or political philosophy but as an actual effective legal strategy, as an actual understanding of how the law works. Armondikov is right in that a lot of these freeman cases aren't people using this guff because they are trying to make some kind of moral stand but because they have a completly delusion understanding of how the law and the courts work.

The edit in question states that "non-recognition of courts-de-facto." is a fundamental tennet. Well this simply is not true. Freeman woo does not hold that one should simply not recognise the authority of the court and ignore them. It holds that you should go there and pull all sorts of mumbo jumbo nonsense and send all sorts of silly letters with made up legalistic sounding jargon and that it will stop you from going to jail/getting fined. That isin't a cause, it's crazyness.

The edit in question does what I've seen across the internet when this woo gets questioned. It trys to change the case from being a technical one to a moral/philosphical one. FOTL gets presented as technical understanding of law but gets debated as a moral argument and in doing so immediatly manages to dodge everything that is most wrong with it. Ydam (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the reverting of this edit. It is reasonable to suggest that it is hard to conclusively say whether the fotl ideas have been proven to fail because of course if you don't recognise the courts etc you can always say the judgement was incorrect. The fundamental point though is that the fotl want to convince us that we can opt out of laws but when there isn't any evidence of succeeding with that it doesn't matter how valid (or not) the fotl understanding of the law is, if you're still getting locked up then you haven't successfully opted out of the laws. Just because fotl types don't want to describe them as failures, it doesn't mean that isn't a fair description. Adambro (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I agree.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

common law

COMMON LAW IS THE ONLY LAW I ACCEPT

the government and court is a corporation,

I AM NOT A LEGAL FICTION OR PERSON, I AM A HUMAN BEING!!

I AM A FREE MAN

DIASSAGREE WITH ME IF YOU ARE NOT A HUMAN BEING! ^{— Unsigned, by: Multimedia / talk / contribs}

I'm a human being, and I disagree. Blue (is useful) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably not a human being. i like laws. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I live under civil law. Ty^{Bother me} 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree and I am also a human being. Or at least I think I do as it's difficult to really understand what you are saying.So Wow! Is it possible there is a flaw in your logic?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

'A statement of fact cannot be insolent.' Orac (a computer)

Using a spellcheck may help your arguments. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the "Freeman successes" YouTube videos

Some passing IP kindly replaced the tumbleweeds image with links to alleged successes on YouTube. The following is my analysis of them:

• FREEMAN SUCCEEDS IN UK COURT: Camera holder appears to be having an epileptic seizure. They also seem to be juggling a bag of marbles, drowning out what everybody is saying. This does no favors to the "Freeman are incompetent morons" stereotype. (Also, apologies, but I can't understand what little I can make out due to the British accents. Is there a Brit in the house willing to listen to this? Skip the first 8 minutes, it's just the camera holder fucking around.)

• Freeman Driving Unregistered Conveyance part 2.mp4: I didn't know British roads were that narrow.

• Freeman In Gloucester Court 29th Jan 2010: Ooh, a title bumper and everything! And subtitles, thank God, so I can understand what the hell everyone is saying. As for the contents of the video, what happens is the Freemen say the magic words they think will activate their special hidden rights or whatever, with the magistrates/judges slowly realizing who these fuckwits are, at which point they walk out. I especially enjoyed the bit where a spectator yelled "Man overboard!" because this is an admiralty court and that apparently means something. (Also at 1 min, 38 sec: lady with pink hair! :-D )

• police at my door after TV License man come to check on my license.: I don't have the context, but as far as I can understand, a Policewoman is talking to the cameraman about something to do with licenses, with the guy stalling the entire time. Isn't this a pleasant role reversal: a calm and polite police officer trying to reason with a rude asshole.

• Freemen seize court and Arrest the Judge at the Roger Hayes hearing (Birkenhead, UK 7th March 2011): Man standing on table yelling. Also, protestors. That's about as much as I can understand. Bonus typo in the description: "marked a president for the people." That's precedent, you dips.

Bonus video from the suggested videos sidebar: Your CAR is NOT a MOTOR VEHICLE. The title alone tells you everything you need to know about Freeman legal theories doesn't it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually seen nearly all these videos before. I'll give you my view on them.

• FREEMAN SUCCEEDS IN UK COURT: Filming in court is actually against the law in the UK, Camera man is trying to hide the camera which is why the footage is so bad. What eventually happens is that the magistrates adjurn the hearing after having put up with enough the the freemans sillyness. Freeman then runs outside and claims victory. This channel isin't the original uploaders (featured in the video), he took down all his videos when he ended up losing in a subseqquent hearing. If I could hear his name in the video I'd google a cite for you. It's a shame he took down his original channel as he had a collection of videos from where the police stopped him for driving ' an unregistered vehicle'. After his freeman shennanigans they smashed his window in order to get to him despite him pleading with them to 'honour their oaths'. He then tried to escape by driving off trying to find safety at the local police station. After the subsequent chase he was arrested and his car seized. It was an amazing collection of idiocy.

• Freeman Driving Unregistered Conveyance part 2.mp4: Freeman drives unregistered car and doesn't get caught doesn't prove anything. incidently I really feel sorry for that poor guys kid.

• Freeman In Gloucester Court 29th Jan 2010: Ah yes professional con-man's Raymond st clair's antics. I wonder how much this charlatan charges this freeman for his services. Again as the video notes at the end the enforcement notice was issued anyway. This is typical freemen, confusing adjurnments for winning.

• police at my door after TV License man come to check on my license.: This isin't really a success. In the UK under the communications act you need a licence if you use a TV that is capable of receiving live broadcasts. The money for this then goes to pay for the wonderfull BBC. As these freeman have found out though this is very difficult to enforce. TV licencing have a list of addresses who aren't licencesed and they perodically visit them to ask if they should have a licence. You are under no legal obligation to speak to them or let them in to your home. You are, however still legally able to film people on your doorstep. This isin't proving that freeman stuff works. It is still the law that you need a licence watching live tv. It mearly shows that you can easily evade it. (TV licencing can still apply for a search warrant though)

• Freemen seize court and Arrest the Judge at the Roger Hayes hearing (Birkenhead, UK 7th March 2011): This event is covered in our article on the British Constitution Group. Bunch of protestors try to 'arrest' a judge during a bankruptcy hearing, They fail, judge gets away and police arrest a bunch of the protestors instead. Roger Hayes whose hearing it was gets declared bankrupt anyway at a later hearing.

Ydam (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ydam! I figured there I was missing most of the context of those videos, so I appreciate the commentary. By the way, if Raymond St. Clair is a known pseudolaw conman, shouldn't we have an article on him? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some vids I found convincing. What are you thoughts on these? http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL14EAB4B509865EB9

Thank you for posting some videos and not telling us to 'do our own research'. It's much appreciated. As to the contents of these videos, I'm afraid I don't find them as convincing. The problem here is that they are all secondary accounts of what happened by believers in fotl/soverign citizenry. As I've seen from the various videos of fotl interactions with the legal system, their understanding of what it actually happening is often at odds with the reality. For instances, adjurnments are always being referred to as a success, or the court being abandoned. Fotl believers find it difficult to truely appreciate the legal reality of what is happening simply because it runs counter to beliefs held with such incredible conviction.

When listening to one persons bragging of a success, it will always be susceptible to exaggeration, ommission or just outright lying. This isin't limited to fotl woo. It applies to everyone in all walks of life. This is why I'm always skeptical of second hand accounts. ('pic's or it didn't happen' as it were)

These videos are no more proof of fotl woo than a video of someone recounting their abduction by aliens is proof of extra terrestrials. Ydam (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream media

I came across this recently [4]. Looks like the mainstream media is beginning to cover this. Makes for interesting viewing Ydam (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover story (please do not archive this section)

See RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Plagiarism. I am nominating the article for gold on this basis: that it's good enough to be lifted wholesale for use as professional legal material, and for this use to be suitable source-laundering for Wikipedia. We can fuss around the edges forever, but this article has proven its winning qualities in a real-world test.

Now, what little details can we fuss over? Do we have anything suitable for use as a picture? Even fair-using a YouTube frame if we can't find anything freely-licenced - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, every paragraph begins with "Freemen [verb]". It would make a lethal drinking game. ^gnostic 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, it could do with some copyediting for style. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a look but it isn't obvious how to clear out a lot of the "Freemen [verb]" without grammatical contortions. Could you or Armondikov please make an edit that's an example of the fix you're thinking of? The main problem appears to be this section - it's not terribly overused elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Done some antfucking, as have others. Better? - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, given that it is an article solely about what Freemen believe and how they act, a large number of "Freemen (verb)" sentences are pretty inevitable.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But they were excessive in that section - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Antfucking?? ^theist 11:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Like commafucking only even more minute and pedantic - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a decorative image of part of the Magna Carta - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of whining, POV-pushing, etc. it should be on the front page. Тy^Talk 21:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it could have a more hierarchical structure instead of 14 flat headings. --Tweenk (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything below "how it works (or not)" could be subsection of that, up until "Birth certificates." Perhaps a little moving of text here and there too? Sophie^{because liberals} 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's just one massive section in the middle. History could use a little more meat? Sophie^{because liberals} 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've given the sections a bit more sectioning, cut surplus chunks here and there and added their reasons for UK fame to the history. Tried to moderate the "Freeman [x]" a bit too. How is it now? - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

References. We may be a bit light on references for the "freemen believe" statements. For instance, I was trying to come up with something on them actually making the claim about all British people being declared dead after seven years but couldn't find anything.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a few. Even other participants on the forums go "wtf?" but it keeps going up. The motherlode is this John Harris transcript (his "It's an illusion" talk, a primary text of the freeman movement), looking for similarly excellent sources of pure radioactive gibbering whaargarbl - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That section was originally based off a few videos that went in to Cestui_Que_Vie_Act and finance related stuff in to quite some depth. I'll see if I can dig them out when I get home. Ydam (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Finding that fan transcript is 100% more useful than the original video. Need to find transcripts of your "sources" list - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Search on "freeman transcript -morgan". That Chris Kettle one is amazing - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Menard posts on the JREF forum. Search for "FreemanMenard" - there is a sizable thread that can be mined for hilarity.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Two threads, 150 pages each, of lunacy? I'm sure everyone will get to those in time ... but they aren't really a blocker for cover - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spent this week sick in bed, and fever delirium is definitely the right way to read that thread. Fuck, we need a Robert Menard article ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

some reworking needs

As David wants to make this a cover article, I read it from the perspective of never having heard of these people. here are some issues

• In the intro paragraph, after a while, it becomes unclear which laws freemen are not agreeing to. First we talk (i assume) all laws by the State, then common law, then "some freeman don't think these laws apply". this sentence was already stated, unless you are saying the don't even have to follow their own laws, or some such.
• Other aspects include insisting that the government is a corporation, an obsession with maritime law, and calling themselves such things as "John of the family Smith." - other aspects of what? their ideology? also, watch parallel structure here.
• No freeman arguments have ever been recognised in court; some have even explicitly ruled that the term "freeman on the land" has no legal significance.[2] This won't stop freemen from claiming they work. -- worth noting here if they have ever actually TRIED to argue it in court.
• History section - The foundational concept of the "citizen" being a "corporate sole" -- what is a corporate sole, we haven't yet defined it.
• Their concepts of admiralty law and common law, their obsession with capitalisation of words and various theories on finance can be traced back to almost identical theories from these movements. --pronoun happy. I'm a bit lost. is this the freeman's NEW concepts, or the older concepts from the movements you list?
• "Freeman arguments came to UK public attention during the Occupy London protests in late 2011," - i would be more specific. Which of their arguments, or just a general sense; and why? were they protestin as well? were they offering counter protests?
• The legalese subsection needs some pronoun/subject help. I'm not at all clear if the freemen are saying that lawyers mis use words, or if the freemen are claiming that the words are simply used wrongly. --Godot What do cats dream about? 19:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

On the "Freeman arguments came to UK public attention during the Occupy London protests in late 2011," - um, there's references right there. They were at the protests and they were spreading their woo, and the references are to the articles they wrote in the Guardian "Comment Is Free" section, which will be the first most people will have heard of them.

"worth noting here if they have ever actually TRIED to argue it in court" - again, there's a reference right there, you even cut'n'pasted the "[2]" linking to it.

Good list, btw, most useful - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not into links, if something can be said quickly, easily in the text itself, but that's me. As i said, i read this article with ZERO experience in mind, and any time i said "huh", noted it. it's you all's job to say "she's an idiot" or "oh, good point" on anything i say. :-) Godot What do cats dream about? 20:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits in respect of the first and second points, though I don't think that the existing text was particularly ambiguous.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Though David's new intro is much better. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through the list and I think it's helped a lot with clarity. Godot, how is it now? (The intro was adapted from a JREF post, hence credit in the reference.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your new intro is really good, and really shows this is a giant word game for them. The legalese section still confuses me a bit. so when a layer writes "understand" in a document, what he *really* means, accourding to the freemen, is that you stand under these words? maybe it jsut doesn't make sense to me, cause it just doesn't make sense as a concept, not the writing.Godot What do cats dream about? 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the heart of the problem. They regard legalese as a sort of computer language which they can h@xx0r with their 'l33t techniques, if they can just work out the magic words. - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How are we doing?

Article's been considerably improved, but is basically stable to my eyes. I've also run it by random readers who haven't indicated confusion or lack of clarity except at the blithering stupidity of the ideas themselves. Any remaining problems? - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow will be seven days since nomination - if there are no showstoppers or strenuous objections before then, I'll gold this then - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gold. WOOT. - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm good to go with it, though i hate the idea of "gold" articles, rather than just "cover" articles, cause it implies a quality and a finality I don't agree with. :P so there. Godot What do cats dream about? 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Think of it as 18crt rather than 24crt, or maybe just 12 or 9. - π 09:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

from IP

I've been researching this stuff for over a year now, sifted through lost of useless crap, and I see where a lot of people like to attack the movement (ex. the use "magic words/ phrases" to bypass the law, no evidence of victories etc). I don't think I'll be able to change any of your minds about this subject as they seem pretty much made up but I'll do some more digging and perhaps you may find what I bring to the table useful in this discussion. Overall, a well written article, covering many of the pertinent points but the bias is quite strong. Maybe a little less name calling would add more validity to the piece. -- GO(o)D SPEEED Shmeh^{— Unsigned, by: 96.49.132.116 / talk / contribs}

Hi. You can find more about our POV here: RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? We tend to have quite clear opinions about things.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism, It is appreciated. Please do bring what you find, we'd be most interested. Trust me if you were able to bring examples of courts consistently accepting these kind of arguments as perfectly valid and admitting that the law had no hold over someone simply because they didn't consent you would change my mind in an instant. That is what is needed to change my mind and I imagine everyone else's here. Ask yourself what would it take to change yours though? Ydam (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

An IP dump.

For posterity, an IP editor dumped this on the article page:

It suggests an alternative to the corruption we all know exists,and is currently being imposed on citizens everyday, by the officers of a corrupted government.Like Constitutional/Civil Rights violations,Police lying in court,And general corruption within every department of the government(especially the judicial branches).It simply appeals to the deprived(which are many in numbers).

example:

The Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery(specifically allows the court to overlook Constitutional/Civil Rights violations)and proceed with state statutes as if it never happened..???One may pose the question "how?",when these violations in themselves are grounds for dismissal.Of course, the people want the resolve promised by this movement.Who could blame them for seeking revenge and resolution?OR A NEW WAY,to address the corruption,as previous legal standings are not working..The movement suggests you will never beat them,on their own turf!Desperately seeking a new method is very appealing to these victims of the government.Right or Wrong,At least it opens the minds to pursue resolve and rectification.A new way of dealing with the corruption.

It also seems very Real when watching these YouTube videos.You will witness the bailiffs not responding to either magistrate or judges orders to "remove these people from the courtroom".Also Empty claims of contempt of court.These bailiffs simply will not comply once reminded of the common law jurisdiction,and the oath they swore.The suggestion is that these government officers are ALL under a sworn oath to protect your rights under the "The Common Law".One Canadian Judge stands and even bows to the freeman,before leaving the courtroom.Notice the Peace officer in the white shirt who is there with "Just Keith".This is the hardest to overcome,why do these bailiffs respond in this manner?

In another video they actually arrest the judge,under a citizens arrest,charging the judge with treason.Again, the bailiffs Do NOT RESPOND!

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PKqhnSo5rw

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sffqcxG6Z4M

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgXWPRbKQE

A lot of very One-sided Comments posted to TRUSTED resourses of the subject,like this one(deleting THIS posting in under 10 seconds)...all of the things like this,suggest that knowlage is power and the corrupt simply dont want you to know.Again,Very appealing.Decide for yourself is a lot easier without peoples opinions dominating what you read...

Dump ends

It lead to discussion on his talk page: User talk:24.160.104.69 Just trying to keep a trail :-)--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, while they may have devolved into a run-of-the-mill angry crackpot midway through the argument, they still started our pretty nice. I mean, we could've had another 17br9 on our hands. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like something for "best of crazy" for me.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Per that IP talk page: Do we have suitable documentation of Raymond St Clair charging people for this nonsense and then putting up misleading videos of the proceedings? If so, it needs mention in the marketing section - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some interesting stuff here. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post that link! Anyway he seems like a very active individual.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Damnit, I was going to post that link too. Seems he and that link is more well known that I expected. Ydam (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if he needs his own article.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got a few more links if anyones interested. The mans got a past more chequered than a chess board here's a particularly good one and some others; [5] [6] [7][8][9] [10]. It seems he's even scamming subscribers to his own freeman rebels site just see the latest postings. He used go by the name of Gary Beaver and one of his more succesfull scams was selling phony titles of nobility. I did once come across a weekend at some hotel he was running where for a hefty sum and all your important documents he'd teach you fotl woo. I really wish I could find it now. Ydam (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Youtube video

Actually this guy might not be entirely in tune with the Freeman ideas; its hard to follow exactly what he's arguing. It is pretty funny though.

part 1

part 2 --Damo^Hi 22:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments are good too. Seems to be attracting a few of the usual "free your mind!!" conspiracy nutters. ^theist 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More fun on the message boards

"from wikipedia"^img. This one offers to set the law on us.^img - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we expecting an influx of crazy then? EVDebs (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hope so - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

[1]^img

General Error

SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]...

Aw. Whatever it was, I missed it :'-( Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. It's back up. Why can't the guy who linked us spell? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

An analogy is creationism. In 1862, serious intelligent educated people could reasonably doubt evolution; in 2012 creationism is reserved to the ignorant (whether simply or wilfully) and the hard of thinking. Similarly, freemanism is an idea stupid enough to restrict itself to (a) failures at life (b) conmen - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

God, these people suck at forum posting.--"Shut up, Brx." 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Law Society of Ireland "Gazette" coverage

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202012/April2012.pdf - page 12 - nothing about RW, sadly, but nice as a new original source David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

News mention in South Africa, that names ... us! - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first one, "the word actually derives from the Dutch 'dokke,' meaning an animal pen." That should definitely be included. I'd do it myself if I weren't feeling so lazy. Also, there's a rather hilarious picture of the actor Morgan Freeman with the caption "Morgan Freeman on the land."--"Shut up, Brx." 00:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary says the Dutch is "dok" (link added), meaning "cage" or "hutch" - David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

SkepticWiki article

We need to import the good stuff from this - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of that is general pseudolaw stuff. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Canadian police on the Freemen

"Freeloaders on the Lam is what they should call themselves. Stupid assholes." Mostly annoyance, some worried about US sovereign citizens (crazies with guns) showing up.

Being an oppressive statist, I laughed out loud at this one:

Chiropractor Rosalie Chobotar was sentenced to six months in jail plus a $162,513 fine -- the amount she owes the Canada Revenue Agency. "With all due respect, I do not accept this offer," Chobotar told provincial court Judge Lynn Stannard before being taken into custody. "This offer is not accepted," she said as court officers gathered her purse and jacket and led her away for transfer to the women's jail.

- David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting youtube video

Looks like someone has made a youtube video all about our article. Apparently it's all bullshit and we're government shrills. I like how he says our sentence "No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in court; " is complete bullshit yet fails to give a single instance of this being the case. Basically he goes though the article and absolutely insists that all fotl arguments are true and we're wrong, as usual there's no facts to back up his viewpoint, just the strength of his own conviction. Makes interesting viewing though. Ydam (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Link?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

oh yeah of course [11]. Whoops I forgot. Ydam (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, if you read the comments, these people are off. I mean, they're off.

“”Lipson Name MeaningJewish (eastern Ashkenazic): variant of Libson, a metronymic from the Yiddish female personal name Libe, from Yiddish ‘love’.Jewish (eastern Ashkenazic): patronymic from the Yiddish personal name Lipe (a short form of Lipman).English: patronymic from Lipp 2.English: habitational name from Lipson in Devon, which is possibly named from Old English hliep ‘leap’, ‘steep place’ + stan ‘stone’ so he's an AHSKANAZIM JEW probably a fucking Zionist.

--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ARe freemen in general this anti-semetic. or was it just these 5 blowhards?--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in my experiance. I think the anti-semetism in this instance is just the usual crank magnetism at work Ydam (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, government shills! BINGOOOOO!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, this guy argues just like John Cleese. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's now a follow-up. Still doesn't provide any evidence of successes though despite the assertion that there are plenty. I love the line For those who believe no proof is necessary not heard that one before. Ydam (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the comments, they seem to trust Metapedia. Obligatory ^bomination 14:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

They deleted my comments...--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing Metapedia's article on RW is a favorite of Mensur Omerbashich and his fans, too.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like Don Quixote. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out the rest of that guy's videos - he thinks he's got footage of "inter-dimensional grey aliens". Balaam (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Capture-tag everything

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org is shutting down in a week or so. It strikes me that we should capture-tag many of the links here. I don't have time right now, so if anyone else can that'd be most helpful - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MAKE TY DO IT!!!!!!--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Suprisingly only one link according to ctrl-f Тyrannis^Plead 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And the ones on the talk page are done now too. Тyrannis^Plead 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn. And I was just joking. --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Who else is going to do it? Nobody who does this sort of thing is active at this time of day. Тyrannis^Plead 02:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Did the ones linked to from RW:PISSED. British Standard Time, y'all. Balaam (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Freemen and Clubmen

What happens if several Freepersons (being gender neutral) come into conflict with each other/the local electricity board digs a hole in their garden (and does not fill it), they are subject to 'creative negative journalism' etc? What is their attitude to the Clubmen [12]? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that a) they'd be confused, as "Clubman" to them would be a brand of talcum powder they see at the barber shop; and b) they'd think they were supporting the 2nd Amendment (assuming they're American; not sure what the British freemen equivalent would be -- right to carry swords or something?) to do the same thing. EVDebs (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias and Opinions

While doing some research on the Freeman Movement I came across this site. I had assumed that this was a site with "factual" information. Obviously this site is actually an opinion site. A website with facts would never have comments that are of a persons personal opinions. Comments such as, "But their theory of the world is utterly spurious, and their practical approach is made entirely of magic beans and crack." has no place in any article except as an opinion. Since this opinion isn't given an acknowledgement by it's author, then I can only assume that the entire article is an opinion piece. This makes your entire site irrelevant for gathering of facts as it obviously has bias opinions interlaced with now questionable facts.

I won't go into all of them but here are other examples of bias/opinions in this topic:

Freeman ideas are so far-out <opinion) that even arch-crackpot <opinion Alex Jones thinks they're "quackery," and agrees that using them will probably get you sent to prison.

This gives their legal arguments a hilarious <opinion nautical theme. Court appearances are by far the most hysterical <opinion part of the freeman delusion, as various YouTube videos will attest. (What you think is funny may differ from what I think is funny.)

Watching freemen trying to apply their delusions to reality is like watching a video of a slow-motion train wreck onto which someone has dubbed delusional gibberish. <opinion

Freeman successes with animated tumbleweeds. <completely unnecessary and juvenile.

I came here to get facts not childish, juvenile opinions and unnecessary comments.

In my opinion, these "facts" make this site irrelevant for acquiring serious information.^{— Unsigned, by: 67.1.185.33 / talk / contribs}

Your opinion is noted, but as an opinion we have to discard it as irrelevant for providing serious feedback. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Living off the land

So how is the principle applied down a mine/cave ('in the land'), in a balloon, on the water, in a submarine (whether or not yellow)? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Who knows. The whole thing is an ass pull to begin with, and I'm sure they'd think of some way to ignore it. I mean, the whole point is that they think that they're above the law to begin with, so I'm sure the average freeman's reaction to that question would be just about as laughable as their landside theories. EVDebs (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's Seasteading, but that's still a bit much unless you like living on an abandoned oil rig. Sophie^Wilder 11:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

'Creative reductio ad absurdum' (or using the same illogic on the illogic proposed) can be fun - or at least a way of annoying the proponents when you have to deal with them. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cestui Que Vie Act section

Rather than edit, I thought I would discuss first. This section ends with this claim:

"The intent of this act is obvious: that anyone lost at sea for more than seven years can be declared legally dead for the purpose of redistributing their estate. How anyone can arrive at a different conclusion is bizarre."

I disagree, in a technical way (although I agree with the general intent of the comment).

I just read the quote from that act of 1666 for the first time and, admittedly, it has been about 6 years since I took property law in law school, but my interpretation of the quoted section of the act is slightly different from the claim in the article (and quoted above). My interpretation is that the act says anyone who LEAVES the jurisdiction (presumably England?) and can't be found and who doesn't provide some evidence of still being alive IF an action is commenced involving their life estate in real property, can be treated as if they are dead.

Basically, rather than "obviously" referring to people who are "lost at sea," my reading of the act is that it refers to "all these idiots who fuck off to the Americas and about whom we have no way of knowing if they're still alive or not."

This is, obviously, not a point that in any way undermines the generally efficient debunking of the freeman movement that the article otherwise provides, but I think it should be corrected.

Again, though, it's been a while since I did any digging into antiquated property law, and this is the first time I have read any part of this act, at least as far as I recall. (I was not super diligent in doing my property law readings because they were not always too stimulating.)

Thoughts?

Trevorbsmith (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd need evidence it was actually used that way to make that claim - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Since the statement in the article says "the intent of this act is obvious" I think my interpretation is disproof by counterexample. I have no idea of what the act was used for, but I would argue that that is also not necessarily proof of what its intent was. (And, of course, "acts" don't have intents--people who draft acts have intents; acts have effects.)

I was just pointing out that I think a plain reading of the text provided does not support the conclusion that the intent claimed in the article was the actual intent at all -- let alone that it was "obviously" the intent.

If we are going to remain talking about the act's intent, I suggest it should say something like "the apparent intent was to..." and fill in something along the lines of my explanation above. But if we want to get into discussing what the actual use of the act was (or even the actual intent of the people who drafted it), I suppose I can go digging into that. But not until after xmas. Trevorbsmith (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree Trevorbsmith. The act was not supposed to have such a narrow effect as is suggested here:

If such person or persons ... shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person

The Act is clearly to deal with situations where the person is not within the jursidiction of the courts for 7 years or more, and there is no evidence that they are alive any more. I think this is further strengthened by section (iv), which provides that if the person turns out to be alive, they can apply to have title revested in them, along with damages for loss of profits. I would change the phrase "lost at sea" to something like "absent from the jurisdiction with no evidence of still being alive". Although this Act does not help the Freeman any, it's effect is not so narrow as is suggested by this article. Damo^Hi 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page [13] applies - and 'most people' would find the concept reasonable (beyond wondering 'why 7 years in particular?'). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A loony speaks

It is funny to me. That even if all of this was not real, And it IS. There would not be so much factual information about it throughout the legal system, Laws & constitutions which the governments are so rapidly trying to change so people can't claim their freedom. People do not want to be slaves & it is a fact that the governments are private corporations with their own agendas & not the peoples concerns in mind.

I hate when people find the truth about a subject there are clowns out there that try their best to come up with all types of fake proof to make people feel what they are learning isn't true. It's crazy to see that someone actually spends all their time in trying to turn people away from the truth & facts at hand. It's a fact that Elite run governments, Governments are private corporations ( which any group of persons can start a governing body), They want everyone under their control, And they use the law which is a sick system used since ancient times, Namely Rome, Passed down by the pope, From the Vatican which runs the district of Columbia, which is a foreign dictatorship that runs the United states corporation of America, Title 28, part VI, chapter 176, subchapter (A) 3002.

PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO WAKE UP. WE KNOW. STOP TRYING TO BRAINWASH US WITH DIVERSIONS FROM THE TRUTH.

I HOPE THE WHOLE WORLD WAKES UP. SOON! AND TAKE THEIR LIVES BACK FORM THE ELITE. MAKE THIS WORLD IN BALANCE AGAIN.

SENSELESS WARS, CONTROL & VIOLENCE ON ALL LEVELS MUST STOP. STOP. STOP!!!! WE DON'T WANT TO BE GOVERNMENT SLAVES.^{— Unsigned, by: Theliebreaker / talk / contribs}

'Keep calm and carry on (and put the kettle on).

If government is run by elites - how does one become a member of the elite?

What about Vaclav Havel's Power of the Powerless? The Hungarian Uprising, the Arab Spring... etc. Also 'Don't vote, it only encourages them/Re-open Nominations - what would happen if there was a voters' strike?

To paraphrase - You describe what you see - the point is to change things. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Using correct capitalisation and possessive apostrophes helps whatever cause is being promoted.

Are you not aware that 'everybody everywhere' follows their own agendas? (Including Sauron's Ring) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Freeloader successes

A BoN dumped these videos in that section, replacing the thumbleweed. Someone who can view YouTube should view them to see if there's something worthy of re-introduction to the article.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YmPD8bs7X0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwsOLZdQ0YE
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PttvYKmxpzc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11eLzuwg0LY
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkn6itUI4yA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndl1gQPNdoI

--ZooGuard (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

See the Wikinfo entries for 'footle' [14].

How apt is this? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary, and not amusing enough for the article but amusing enough for the talk page ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It pays to check the connotations of terms used (Nova cars in Spain, a brand of Australian sticky tape etc) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

More alleged successes

50.140.49.233 replaced the thumbleweeds with these links:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU7G6XIMt2Q&list=FLrs4sSAKTM_e1ChbAGxwWig
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsgXWPRbKQE&list=FLrs4sSAKTM_e1ChbAGxwWig
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5LXDX7ON34

Someone who can watch YouTube videos can have a look.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As a gold star article I am not sure how much to address individual you tube videos but most of this is rehash that has been around forever with Raymond St. Clair. The first video even admits at the end that the "client" still was found to have liability and leans put against him, the second is the infamous Birkenhead arrest of a judge which only wound up in the freeman being arrested. And last is a Canada case where he was also found guilty and lost his property and ultimately did jail time for breaking into his house after foreclosure. 206.192.168.26 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The First Thing That Comes to Mind When I Hear "Freeman on the Land"

"... Where the fuck is Half Life 2: Episode 3 already?! Seriously!!" IAMELIPHAS (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Another youtube video

Another video about this article. Thought I might as well drop this here. Not nearly as funny as the last one though. Ydam (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

All law is optional

If you opt to obey it, things generally work out nicely. If you opt to ignore or defy it, people with guns will come and put you in a cage or take your money. Or both. --YoureRetorted (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Freemen on the land

... by definition have no legal rights to the land.

Therefore they have snookered themselves. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

wp:Outlawry was a thing, you know.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I was making (in the UK things are slightly different - the Duke of Normandy and the King of Mann has ownership)

What happens if the local council puts a compulsory purchase order on their house/someone dumps a load of rubbish in their front gardens? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Closest to a sucess story I've run across

A related form of legal woo termed the flesh and blood defence:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0805.carey.html

Its just possible that the people using it gummed up the system enough to avoid the death penalty.Geni (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

But Seriously

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases prove that federal jurisdiction is limited to the few federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215. "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed..." "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted..." "Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229. Likewise, Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the several States.

Therefore, in addition to the fact that no *unrevealed* federal contract can obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and uncoerced consent, likewise, no federal statutes or regulations apply to me or have any jurisdiction over me.

Is there any way to add this content? What about this positive use of the phrase "freeman" by a political figure? http://freedom-school.com/travel/senator-wayne-stump-letter.pdf

I notice that the main point about "freemen" is whether someone does have jurisdiction; the above case law proves that there is merit to some of their arguments. Will RationalWiki acknowledge these facts or will its editors cleverly delude readers into thinking there is no basis in law for these claims?^{— Unsigned, by: 24.251.197.52 / talk / contribs}

There is no basis in law to any of your claims. You're parroting claims that have been debunked a thousand times. Federal Law does not work on a contract principle and each of your cases are quotes taken out of context (I read the cases) and refer to specific matters that are not within federal purview, not that ALL LAW IS OUT OF FEDERAL CONTROL.

You're a silly statist. Go break federal law, see how it works out for you. Give you a hint: You still go to jail and the judge will laugh your silly arguments out of court. Seen it before a hundred times :)^{— Unsigned, by: 156.34.94.69 / talk / contribs} ]

That's us told

Honestly all of these articles under pseudolaw are quite uninformed and miseducated on the subject matter, mostly I see a bunch of emotional bigots arguing in favor of slavery through consent - I'm not going to bother with helping this wiki out because it seems like a bunch of laughable BS already, and I don't need a headache in trying to correct the sources and misleading arguments.. That said, enjoy your kool-aid! 50.53.158.39 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bobby of the family Sludds

Regarding the above example of the stellar success of the freeman movement, here is a better link (http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexfordpeople/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-27727181.html), as the Irish Times has moved to being a subscription service. ^{— Unsigned, by: 178.167.254.137 / talk / contribs}

Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Now infecting Straya

The madness has come to our realms:

http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/commonwealth-of-australia-is.html ^{— Unsigned, by: 202.89.174.132 / talk / contribs}

Alberta judge goes to town

Hi, just spotted this and don't have a great deal of time to deal with it. Any takers? - Judge in a divorce case in Alberta has gone to town on a guy trying to use Freeman woo. Quite like the fact that the poor soul is so desperate that he has barely changed the US-based legal pack he bought for a case in Canada. http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf and http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Judge+refutes+idiotic+claims/7312309/story.html^{— Unsigned, by: AmericanEnglish / talk / contribs} +6523

Just thought I'd provide a better link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

That's the CanLII version, so all the cases he references are hyperlinked, and some are just too funny to not read!

Other countries

In Germany, there is a similar movement called "Reichsbuergerbewegung" or "Kommissarische Reichsregierung (KRR)". See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommissarische_Reichsregierung for details. Basically, their belief is that the Deutsches Reich did not cease to exist after WW II, being followed by the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (being themselfs unified in 1990). Rather, the FRG is just a LLC which illegaly administers the property of the Reich. The "Reichsregierung" sees itself as the legal government of the Deutsches Reich, thus not being subject to the laws of the FRG. For a fee, they issue pseudoofficial documents such as building permits, driving licences which of course don't hold before FRG courts. Furthermore, they refuse to pay taxes. As is the nature of such crank organisations, they have split to near nothingness, declaring the other existing KRRs as illegal in "their" law, expelling each other from the Deutsches Reich and so on. Some of them are hilariously funny, some are dangerous because of their affliction with Neo Nazis and such.

(sorry for the bad English, some of you might have guessed until now that I am from Germany and English is not my primary language). ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.66.182.135 / talk / contribs}

Let me try to interpret this. You are saying that KRR's believe that the government after WWII is illegitimate and more like a corporation, therefore has no real power or authority over them, while the previous government is still the real authority. Am I right? (Also, your English is pretty good. Better than what passes for average in the US.) Zero (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We actually have an article -- Provisional Imperial Government. They are definitely modestly amusing. EVDebs (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I knew I had heard it before, but couldn't find the article. So I've added a redirect with the German name.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The best example is probably Mario Heinz Kiesel, a.k.a. "Mario from the family Romanowski". Among his many YouTube videos about topics like HAARP, Chemtrails, alternative medicine and Nazis (who are the good guys) returning from their secret bases in Antarctica and on the dark side of the Moon, he also mentions pretty much everything on this page. He insists to be a "natural and free person", not lost at sea according to maritime law, and doesn't consent to a contract with the "Federal Republic of Germany Financial Agency LLC", which everyone who has been issued a German identity card is supposedly an employee of (he "proves" this by mis-interpreting the German term "Personalausweis", which could conceivably mean "personnel identification" instead of "personal identification"). 78.49.74.140 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I Almost Didn't Believe They Were Real.

This one left its footprints and scat right on the porch. Godless11B's gonna die the way he lived. 19:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links getting a bit length

We're not as rabid as Wikipedia about external l~/Downloads/disabled\ mods/inks. But this section is getting a bit lengthy. Can any of these reasonably be digested into the article? - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Meads vs meads link might be worth integrating into the main body as it is a good thorough analysis of this phenomena. Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a reference (which is what I meant by "digest"), I was thinking of the stuff in the "External links" section - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fictional Roots

It seems to me to be a Discordian joke that has got out of hand. It is based on misunderstanding real fiction not just a misunderstanding of the Law. The main protagonist of the Illuminatus! novels is called 'Freeman Hagbard Celine' and is the first confirmable use of the term I can find in this context. In the novels though Celine lives in a submarine in international waters in order to live by 'the law of the sea' out of the reach of governments, nothing to do with applying Maritime Law to any other type of Law and importantly it is stressed several times that he lives that way BECAUSE governmental laws are backed by force of arms and cannot be gotten around not in spite of them. - ^{— Unsigned, by: 188.29.164.103 / talk / contribs} 17:00, 1 October 2014‎ (UTC)

So more to the story. At one time in America, pre-1854, people were sovereigns. What this meant was that they were not 'citizens', yet. Citizenship brought about a combined understanding that you were and can be protected by the gov't of the place you are from, whether born there or whatever. People that read sections of history as if they are concluding something, wind up corrulating instead. It is true that anyone could denounce there citizenship publicly, meaning in a court that hears those cases, usually federal court. At that moment that person would become sovereign unto themselves. But, what idiot would do that? You will lose protection, not have access to services, and not even be able to buy beer. So the idea of 'freemen' HAS existed, but for the betterment of the people, we chose to become as one nation. This is all found through studying the history of citizebship. If you think that that is complicated, look up how laws work with Native Americans, thas when all this stuff gets even stranger. (DeanCorso11) ^{— Unsigned, by: DeanCorso11 / talk / contribs} 20:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We've got a group of them

The Bearwood and Merley Organic Free Energy Community. Seem to be buying into FOTL woo judging by their facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=867113626665118&id=863566677019813

Geni (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Updates

Could there be some more recent examples than 2013?

No connection between 'freeman on the land' and 'freedman on the land = sharecropper'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably, feel free to put some in.

Not that I know of - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This

Why? Why the Magna Carta? The Magna Carta is 800 YEARS OLD and does not necessarily apply to the state of affairs today. Sincerely KJ24

So these freemen want 'a council of 25 self selected lords of the kingdom' to impose on the President/King John's zombie?

What about the fish traps? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

License Fee

The articles' use of the BBC license fee as an example is a particularly poor choice, as the license fee is actually the closest to what freemen imagine that reality actually gets: It is a "contract" dependant upon you watching tv, the BBC do use spurious allusions and legal mumbo jumbo to imply & attempt to persuade that every 'household' has to pay, but if you choose not to watch tv you don't have to pay (although courts have not believed people who say 'just because I own one you can't prove I ever watch it', it only really applies to those who don't own televisions, or don't have them connected to an aerial (mostly pc monitors these days, though I recall a case of some kids who just used an old tv for playstation)). To non-Brits this probably sounds like exactly the sort of crap these guys go on about, which is exactly my point. 80.42.37.149 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a freeman on the land analysis of that. If you can find better feel free. Being in the US it's not something that has much impact to me, but there is no way I am going near their crazy crap to find better...or most anyone else it seems. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the FOTL analysis proposes that you're free to ignore this contract if you don't consent to it - despite the legal precedent of only those able to demonstrate that their TVs aren't actually used for watching broadcasts being able to avoid paying. Note how the FOTL leaflet suggests that you're free to ignore a court summons as a mere "offer". It's this "I never signed up for this"-hooplah that's at the heart of FOTL pseudolaw.

And no, I'm not a fan of the licensing system of the BBC (or my national broadcaster), but that's because it's effectively a regressive tax (except for UK pensioners) for a wholly public organisation, yet despite it being treated as a tax for purposes of non-payment it's presented as a service fee as if it was something you actually had a realistic choice to avoid. In the case of my national broadcaster, the situation is exacerbated because possession of any device capable of internet access triggers this "license", meaning that practically no adult citizen is likely to be able to avoid it. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"any device capable of Internet access"? I think you're dead wrong there. Unless you have case law (not just speculation) to cite - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerard; just in case you've missed it, I'm not referring to the BBC rules, but to those governing my national broadcaster (read: I don't live in the UK, or the US for that matter).

And yes, here the license fee applies to anything with an internet and/or broadcast access capable of displaying video (because, despite the fact that some stuff isn't accessible via the broadcaster's webcast due to copyright restrictions, our dear leaders thought that this apparently didn't mean squat when it came to contributing to the "common pot"). I could give you a link to the law which also specifically mentions computers, mobile phones and tablets, but as it isn't in English...

Even more ridiculously, my national public broadcaster would potentially have to investigate people's domestic arrangements (what's derogatively known in our vernacular as "duvet lifting" or "duvet peeking"). Why? Because two people living together (e.g. students sharing a flat) have to pay separate license fees if they're singles, but if they claim to be a couple, they need only pay a single household fee (specifically referred to as married couples and "marriage-like" domestic arrangements). The broadcaster has (as far as I know), wisely, chosen to accept at face value any claims of cohabitation to the extent of being a household, but once again this illustrates how hopelessly out of date the household license fee system is, socially and technologically. On the other hand, the increasing number of singles must've been a financial boon for the broadcaster (not to mention that today it's practically impossible to be exempt from the license - with minuscule exceptions: How many owns neither a smartphone/computer/tablet with web access nor a TV?).

The system also involves our broadcaster (and politicians) insisting that the license fee is not a tax, yet if you don't pay, you receive a threatening letter from... our national parallel to the IRS which just happens to do the actual collecting - incl. clauses that allow for the fee, and the rather hefty additional fees for every notice of late payment, to be deducted from any welfare benefits you may receive (not exactly a sign of a "fee" paid to an "independent" entity, I'd say).

Oh, and even though I live in a rather wealthy country, our annual license fee isn't exactly peanuts (especially if you're on welfare): At current conversion rates it amounts to about $370/£235/€330 annually, paid at a minimum rate of 6 months' worth in advance, of course (contrast with the £145.50 that the BBC makes you fork over...).

So, why does this absurd (and regressive, only the very poorest pensioners can apply for a reduced licence fee and blind people are only able to avoid the fee if they live in a household consisting solely of blind people) system persist? Because it allows our politicians to pretend that a licence fee isn't a tax despite completely flunking the duck test and that it can thus be treated as something entirely outside the usual politicking over the national budget. Instead, it's segregated into a special set of "media law" negotiations where various media types and outlets can haggle with politicians over the media tax's licence's size, other types of media subsidies and their size and distribution, what the limits to and definitions of public service is and what should be left to the free market, the impact and role of the national public broadcaster on the national media landscape, and so on and so forth. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible quotes of Gold article quality? (both for opening and various sections)

I had (actually irresponsibly) added an opening quote (by Jeremy Bentham) to the article without paying proper attention to it being both a Gold article and a Cover Story, both of which require more thought through edits. In a New Jersey accent: See? I'm learning - I'm really new to this crazy wiki thing. But ey, ow, ey, I'm scraping together over here. Good move from David Gerard reverting that edit.

David's comment was "it's entirely unclear how that's applicable or relevant", a comment which I think makes a valid point regarding the quote I added. The Bentham quote went "Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart.", and I agree it doesn't really sit all that contextually well with the overall intent of the article. The point of that quote WAS to try to underscore how these random, wannabee anarchistic grabs for freedom essentially amount to chaos or disregard for the law, and the point also being that a state of anarchy is a state of tyranny in and of itself, in the sense that in both a tyranny and an anarchy people with power and guns can do whatever they damn well please, and if they say "jump!" you better sqeak "how high?". So anyways, scratch the Bentham quote.

I've got some far better suggestions for other quotes, however;

• Katharine Hepburn said: "If you obey all the rules you miss all the fun." (Hooray, like the fun of being jailed because you thought you could say "Nah, I'd rather be free."?)
• Vladimir Putin said "You must obey the law, always, not only when they grab you by your special place." (Putin is scary.)
• Niccolo Machiavelli said "Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." (Making the point, as in the article, that people who have immediate needs are ripe to be fooled into thinking that they may for example opt out of the law)
• Theodore Roosevelt said "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." (Teddy making the point like; yeah - don't expect this crap to work)

Thoughts on this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the Roosevelt one as a header, the Machiavelli one could be added to a section underscoring the scamminess of the movement. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You could probably pull some authentic freeman lines from this video here. My favorite? "I don't know what the hell law book you're reading, but it doesn't apply to me." --Maxus (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Allright Maxus, that was one brilliant quote right there. I vote for it, the Roosevelt one and the Machiavelli one. And I think your quote should probably be the opener. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes it even better is it's said to a court bailiff. --Maxus (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need general quotes from famous people who aren't actually linked to or talking about FotL, but particularly good examples of the ridiculous things freemen say, like that law book one, would be a delightful zesty addition - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)