Borrowed in its entirety from Capt Ranty. (with permission)
This is a must read for all those interested in the Freeman movement.
It is a fair description of what we are doing but there was one glaring error which I (Capt Ranty) have attempted to correct in the comments section at the Libertarian Alliance site. Professor John Kersey has combined Freeman with Lawful Rebellion. They are not one and the same although both can be done simultaneously. Actually, becoming a Freeman is a choice. Entering Lawful Rebellion is a duty.
I’ve nicked a chunk of it to whet your appetite, but please get over there and read the whole thing.
Principles of the Freeman on the Land movement
“There is some debate within the movement on exactly how its principles are established and operate, and to a certain extent they are constantly evolving both on the basis of research into the law and in the light of the practical application of these maxims. However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:
- The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that jurisdiction. A natural person is endowed with a number of inalienable, God-given rights. That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.
- By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally applicable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.
- The instrument that is held to represent a given individual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.
- The validity of such a contract is questionable because the contract as represented by a birth certificate is entered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) and the state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.
- It follows that if the contract is deemed void, it may be possible to separate the natural person (common law) from the legal fiction (civil law). As a result, whereas the birth certificate (as a piece of paper) is evidence of the legal fiction contracting with the state, that birth certificate is not the same as the natural person represented by the living individual.
Freemen make a distinction between the name of their legal fiction (John Smith) and their natural name (which may take many forms, but is usually expressed as “John: as commonly called of the family Smith”, “John: Smith” or similar.) They refer to the legal fiction as a “straw man”9 and maintain that it is possible for the natural person to control the straw man as a legal fiction for the purposes of contracting with third parties, without at any point entering into liability on behalf of the natural person.
In addition, it is proposed by some that it is possible to obtain documentary evidence of this separation between natural person and legal fiction by completing and serving a series of sworn affidavits upon the Queen . The first of these provides, inter alia, that the Queen10 has been unlawfully and falsely induced to give unlawful effect to legislation that has violated and continues to violate the Common Law, with the implication that the security and safety of the individual under the laws that are his or her inalienable birthright (under Common Law) are now threatened without prospect of redress, and that unless the Queen should dismiss the House of Commons and provide redress, then he or she will withhold all allegiance and obedience to the Crown and its representatives. A forty day period is provided for the Queen to act in the manner proposed. On the assumption that she does not, a second affidavit to be delivered after the forty days confirms the statements of the first and declares the person concerned to be subject solely to the Common Law.”
It is absolutely great that Professor Kersey took the time to do this. The movement grows day by day. I think he massively underestimates the numbers involved in this, but it matters not. Successes in court build week by week and the snowball is rolling rapidly down the hill.
All we need to do really, is wait for the Hundredth Monkey Theory to kick in.
For those of you who wish to join us in this mass opt-out from Parliamentary abuse, then please find copies of my own Affidavits which I had sent in 2008, which you may use as templates.