Freeman on the Land - opting out of society

Factual Questions
61

I’ve I come across a case in Ontario fussing with the difference between automobile and vehicle, and I have come across newpaper stories about people in Ontario who do not believe the government has the authority to tax them, including a group that bought an island in Superior who claim that it is not part of Canada because it was not on an early map (unfortunately, I can’t remember the name of the island). That nut that went after me for over a million spewed all sorts of nonsense about the courts not having jurisdiction over him, based in his mind on everything from the UCC to the ICJ (yes, I am still receiving cheques from him toward costs each month).

Up in my end of the province, there is a lot of legitimate discussion and dispute over the applicability of Canadian and provincial laws over aboriginal Indians, with some people (including a lawyer I used to work with) asserting that there is no jurisdiction at all. I have seen that line used in criminal court a few times by unrepresented people, to no effect. The flip side of the coin is that I regularly observe laws not being enforced on reserves that are enforced off-reserve, despite there being jurisdiction both on and off reserve (for example, the dearth of provincial regulation of landfills on reserve, or the failure to collect federal tax on gasoline sold on-reserve to non-natives).

62

Okay, the nutjobs in UK, USA and Canada have this. Are there similar nutjobs elsewhere? Any freeman on the land in the Swiss Alps or Australian Outback?

63

“Sewerage” and “sewage” are both words, but with different meanings. “Sewerage” is a somewhat archaic word meaning the piping that collects and transports sewage. Nowadays this piping usually simply referred to as “sewers.”

64

Has anyone you worked with ever simply said “Fine, we’ll re-lodge the forms with your name spelt however you like” to nobble that argument?

65

After I wrote that up, I saw Northern Piper made some of my points, and made them better. But I didn’t feel like deleting my hard work.

Princhester said:

Yes, I think there’s some sort of weird belief or assumption that they have that people have become civilized, and therefore don’t need society and law and whatnot to keep orderly. It’s not that they’re libertarians, or even anarchists. They take it a step farther, from thinking that society should be this way to thinking society really is this way underneath it all, and has somehow been corrupted.
RickJay said:

Well, you might be able to Grizzly Adams for a while undetected, but even Adams had a cabin and a water supply and trade for certain items. At some point someone is going to come stumbling by (DEA searching for pot fields, Homeland Security searching for illegals and drug smugglers, drug smugglers trying to get through undetected, random hikers and campers out enjoying the wilderness you think you have to yourself but is part of a National Park, etc). I imagine some park ranger finding you living it up Grizzly Adams style in a National Park is going to have a few words with you about the [del]legality[/del] lawfulness of you building a cabin in the woods, or whatever.

66

Isn’t Somalia pretty much like that? Hasn’t had a functioning central government in two decades, Warlords, generally being a third world hell-hole, etc…

67

There is one guy who might sort of qualify: Leonard Casley, who actually declared his farm in Western Australia to be a separate country, and he’s sort of gotten away with it depending on whose point of view you ask.

Of course, he isn’t trying to argue that the Government Doesn’t Exist or that spelling his name entirely in capital letters somehow refers to a different person or anything crazy like that- but I think it takes true determination of individuality to declare yourself a separate country, make it stick, fight arguably successful legal battles over it, and then keep going for the next four decades after you’ve made your point. :slight_smile:

68

If they had been dumped on an island and couldn’t fall apart, they’d have to find a way of dealing with the issues. Sure, there’d be violence and chaos for a period of time, perhaps even a long period of time. But out the other end would come some form of governance and they would be on the road to living in a nation with laws and taxes.

69

Of course, there’s also the option of pulling a Christopher McCandless and just disappearing into the wilds of Alaska or something. Then again, we know what happened to him.

70

The only person saying he’s seceded is him, and the vast BS industry that spawns off him. The ATO doesn’t give out any information about individual tax affairs but does confirm that it does not consider Leonard Casley to have any special status whatever. The only battle he’s won is a PR battle.

71

Hang on. Just to clarify–they view their relationship with their government as contractual? Offer, acceptance, consideration, that sort of thing? Constitutional considerations don’t enter into it? In other words, all law is private, never public?

I don’t doubt you, Northern Piper; I’d just like clarification as to whether these folks see all law as private. If so–phew!

72

From State of Ohio v. Bob Manashian Painting (2002), 121 Ohio Misc.2d 99:

…On September 28, 1999, the [Cleveland Municipal] Court entered judgment for plaintiff [the State of Ohio] against defendant in the sum of $482.10, with statutory interest to run from the date of judgment. The Court now has before it a “Certified Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction,” " Nunc Pro Tunc Estoppel at Law and Public Notice Recission Affidavit" and other documents prepared by Robert Z. Manashian, apparently a principal of defendant, and filed on October 17, 2002. Manashian (hereinafter “defendant”) asserts, among other things, that he is a “state citizen and principal… not a sub class U.S. citizen [but] a Sovereign American Citizen ‘only’ [and] no longer a 14th Amendment citizen.”

The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate such documents. The Court will treat them as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person under Civ.R. 12(B)(2), and will rule accordingly…

Even if the Court were persuaded of the validity of defendant’s assertion of sovereignty - which it definitely is not - it would avail him nothing against a lawful judgment entered against him more than three years earlier.

To evade that judgment, defendant wishes to set himself outside the structure of ordered liberty provided by the laws of this state and this nation. President George Washington once warned, “If the laws are to be trampled upon with impunity, and a minority (a small one too) is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government.” Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (Little, Brown and Co. 1969), p. 316. It is hard to conceive of a minority smaller than one.

Defendant is a citizen of this state unless and until he establishes residency in another state, or in another country. He is a citizen of the United States unless and until he undertakes those steps provided under Federal law for revocation of citizenship - and, incidentally, subjects himself to deportation. 8 U.S. Code 1229, 1481; see also Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), 387 U.S. 253. Clearly, defendant wishes to have his cake of citizenship and eat it too. He wishes to live in this state, drive on its roads, walk on its paths, be protected by its constitution, laws, courts and officers, and enjoy all of its rights and blessings, while shirking its responsibilities - including the responsibility to pay his lawful debts. This is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of the law, and this, the Court will not permit him to do…

Defendant’s filings are a nullity, of no legal force and effect whatsoever. The Court’s judgment of September 28, 1999, stands.

73

**Princhester ** said:

If he’s not paying taxes, then I’d say he’s won something. Whatever anyone wants to call it, he is not paying taxes to the Australian Commonwealth.

74

I wonder what kind of mental illnesses some of these people suffer from, or what kind of personal hell they’ve had to endure in order to fully invest themselves into believing in these insane conspiracy theories. Nobody likes taxes, but there’s a large gulf between not liking them and thinking it’s ok to not pay them based on a semantic reading of legalese and tortured logic.

I heard this once, on King of the Hill, spoken by (who else?) Dale. Something about the gilded gold horns on the flags in court meant that it was part of the Navy or something and as such, has no jurisdiction to try him in their court. Where does this idea of flag decoration and court jurisdiction really come from?

I hope somebody steals her book and makes it downloadable for free. Then see which government body she goes crying to

75

From wikipedia’s article, it seems he has succeded, and that he managed to actually have some valid legal ground for his “secession” .

Interesting case.

76

I see the Freemen movement as another in the many fascinating subculture groups of insane people that the internet has made possible. My personal favorite such group is Otakukin. Once, these people would have been alone. But with the net, they can connect to other people with similar delusions.

77

Leonard Casley is a bullshit artist, and his bullshit is adopted wholesale by people (and numerous websites) who think the idea that he has seceded is twee and funny and rebellious.

The idea that the Australian government recognises his grazing property as having seceded is prime, A grade bullshit. Here is an actual quote from an Australian government website

Here is a quote from an ABC media story(ABC being Australia’s quality non-commercial broadcaster):

Leaving aside Casley’s spin (or inability to understand some basic facts) when the ATO sends you a tax return, it’s because they consider you to be a taxpayer. If they assess your taxable income at $0, it’s because that was your taxable income under Australian tax law. If you weren’t a (potential) taxpayer, they wouldn’t send you a return.

The reason Casley doesn’t pay tax is he has no income. This is not at all unusual particularly in the rural sector. No doubt all his income goes to a company or trust that he or his family control, and his property and house and car are owned by that structure and all his day to day expenses are paid through that structure. Setting up his affairs in this way would be highly beneficial since a lot of his tourist income depends upon being able to show off his ATO returns showing $0 taxable income to gullible tourists who think it means something. Which it does: it means that the ATO consider him to be an Australian taxpayer who doesn’t earn anything, but some people don’t see the wood for the trees.

I see that there are a number of companies with “Hutt River” in their name registered in Australia. They may or may not be related to Casley, I’m not going to spend the search fees to find out. But you can bet your Hutt River Dollars that Casley ain’t going to be showing around all the financial records and tax returns of entities he is associated with, or those of his family. Doing so would burst the bubble. Sorry to have burst yours, kids.

78

That’s my best interpretation of it - as I said, an extreme form of libertarianism.

For a more detailed review of the sovereign citizen movement, the Anti-Defamation League has a nice overview: Sovereign Citizen Movement.

79

Actually, Irishman, I thought your post was a very good summary of some of the weirdnesses around these folks, and raised points I’d not mentioned.

I can help with some of the additional points you raised there.

This part of the sov-citz arguments is a garbled version of their understanding of fractional reserve banking. In their view, the banks don’t have any money, and by you coming in and asking for a loan, that’s what generates the money that they loan to you. It’s just another example of the oppressive banking regime run by international banking cartels that have foreclosed on the government of the United States, etc., etc. Since it was your activity that created the money, the bank is illegitimately taking the money from you and requiring you to pay interest on it to boot. However, if you find the right magic words, buried in the UCC or somewhere, and serve the bank with the right documents, the bankers will throw up their hands, say “You got us - we’ll forgive the loan if you just keep quiet about this, etc.” Of course, no-one has yet found those magic words, and several have gone to jail trying to find the magic words instead of paying their mortgage, but that doesn’t stop some sov-citz from still trying.

That’s an accurate summary of some of the stuff I’ve seen - that the common law is superior to statute law, which is only some form of contracts put out by government.

Their answer to who can enforce the common law is “common law courts” established directly by the people. That is, anyone can get their friends and supporters together and say that they are the common law court of a particular area, and then as an example of democracy in action, start issuing actions and summonses against people they don’t like. The Montana Freeman tried that approach, which is one of the reasons they ended up in jail - their common law court started issuing fake liens which the Freemen then started registering against the property titles of people they had disputes with. Some sov-citz courts have tried to issue arrest warrants against law enforcement officers or judges, which also gets them in trouble quickly.

The ADL page I linked to in the earlier post has a good summary of the common law courts idea.

80

We had a rash of common-law courts here in Ohio about a decade ago, but the state legislature cracked down and we’ve seen very little of it since.