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 re- search into the law and in the light of the practical applica- tion of these maxims. However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:
1. The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that juris- diction. A natural person is endowed with a number of inal- ienable, God-given rights. That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.
2. By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally appli- cable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.
3. The instrument that is held to represent a given indi- vidual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.
4. The validity of such a contract is questionable be- cause the contract as represented by a birth certificate is en- tered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) andthe state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.
Source
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 re- search into the law and in the light of the practical applica- tion of these maxims. However, there seems to be general agreement on the following:
1. The common law of England and Wales is universally applicable to those people (natural persons) within that juris- diction. A natural person is endowed with a number of inal- ienable, God-given rights. That natural person is referred to as a Freeman on the Land.
2. By contrast, civil or statute law, the majority of which is considerably more recent in origin, is not universally appli- cable but instead, because of its commercial basis (in the law of the sea), rests upon a contract between two parties, the first party being the state, and the second party being the legal fiction representing a given individual.
3. The instrument that is held to represent a given indi- vidual entering into such a contract with the state is a birth certificate.
4. The validity of such a contract is questionable be- cause the contract as represented by a birth certificate is en- tered into between a minor (who cannot validly contract) andthe state, and because consent is therefore assumed rather than established.
5. It follows that if the contract is deemed void, it may
be possible to separate the natural person (common law)
from the legal fiction (civil law). As a result, whereas the
birth certificate (as a piece of paper) is evidence of the legal
fiction contracting with the state, that birth certificate is not
the same as the natural person represented by the living indi-
vidual.
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 ob- tain 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 pro- vides, inter alia, that the Queen 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 un- der the laws that are his or her inalienable birthright (under Common Law) are now threatened without prospect of re- dress, and that unless the Queen should dismiss the House of Commons and provide redress, then he or she will with- hold all allegiance and obedience to the Crown and its repre- sentatives. 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.
An alternative proposal on similar lines involves serving a sworn affidavit to the Prime Minister11 that establishes the position of the individual as a Freeman and invites the Prime Minister to respond in rebuttal of the points made. On this not being done, a notarized Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure is sent, followed in the event of further non- response by a notarized Notice of Default. This last default statement is held to be a “bona fide lawfully binding agree- ment/contract” between the individual and the government that can then be produced to other public authorities in evi- dence of the same.
A number of legal sources are cited by Freemen in support
of their position, including such documents as the Charter of
Liberties of 1100, Magna Carta (1215, 1297), the Treason Act
1351, the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights 1689, the Parlia-
ment Act 1911, the National Insurance Act 1922 and the Gold
Standard Act 1925.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 ob- tain 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 pro- vides, inter alia, that the Queen 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 un- der the laws that are his or her inalienable birthright (under Common Law) are now threatened without prospect of re- dress, and that unless the Queen should dismiss the House of Commons and provide redress, then he or she will with- hold all allegiance and obedience to the Crown and its repre- sentatives. 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.
An alternative proposal on similar lines involves serving a sworn affidavit to the Prime Minister11 that establishes the position of the individual as a Freeman and invites the Prime Minister to respond in rebuttal of the points made. On this not being done, a notarized Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure is sent, followed in the event of further non- response by a notarized Notice of Default. This last default statement is held to be a “bona fide lawfully binding agree- ment/contract” between the individual and the government that can then be produced to other public authorities in evi- dence of the same.
Source