The Bizzle

"Saving your ass since 1999"

Comment is free, but woo is sacred

So the Freeman on the Land movement seems pretty marginal. All that stuff about choosing whether statutes apply to you, and how debt isn’t real because they capitalised your name – everyone with a functioning brain can see that it’s nutty woo, right?

Well, it turns out that the Guardian has an open mind on these issues. At any rate, they’ve given a Comment Is Free platform to the not-in-any-way-a-loony-conspiracy-theorist Jon Witterick to push his GetOutOfDebtFree site.

The full quote from which the Guardian’s opinion site takes its name (and which is one of the foundation stones of the newspaper’s mission) is “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” I couldn’t agree more.

So, some facts:

“After a bit of research, I realised the debt collectors buy debts for less than 10p in the pound, after the bank writes the debt off.”

Well, not all debt collectors buy debts. Almost all lenders attempt to collect their own debts first, and many (perhaps most) specialist debt collectors recover debt as agent for the original creditor.

After a time, creditors do write debts off, but that’s how they recognise bad debts for accounting purposes (that is, to show them as a provision or impairment in their accounts). It doesn’t mean that the debt is extinguished, although it’s reasonable to suppose that lenders will focus their efforts on more collectable debts.

Some of that bad debt may then be sold on to specialist debt collectors – that’s an obvious way of realising income to offset what would otherwise be a profit-reducing bad debt in that year’s accounts. depending on the age of the debt and how easy it is to collect (for example, whether it is secured or not), prices could range from 1p to 90p in the pound.

But Mr Witterick’s website promotes his methods as applying to all creditors and debt collectors, and his customers (followers? cult members?) use them in that way. Cue baffling demands that the original lender provide proof that the debt has been assigned to them, and more in that vein.

“I also found out that under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the debt collector is actually paying off our debt when they buy it.”

Er, did you? The Bills of Exchange Act defines a bill of exchange as:

“…an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”

Which is to say, it is a document by which Person A can require Person B to pay money to Person C at some future time. It is not relevant whether this is in settlement of an existing obligation that Person B owes to Person A, or whether Person A will settle with Person B after the order has been paid, or whether there is no settlement between them at all. (It will be obvious, I think, that this is the origin of our modern bank notes.)

A bill of exchange involves three parties, and has no mutuality of obligation between Person A and Person B. It is not a contract, which I imagine is one reason why it requires a statutory basis to have effect.

By contrast, a debt sale is an arrangement between two parties only, whereby Person A contractually assigns to Person C his legal right to collect a debt from Person B. The difference is that no order is required to be made to Person B, because the obligation to repay the money already exists.

Because the debt sale is a contractual arrangement between Person A and Person C, consideration is required to effect the assignment (unless done under deed, but in any event the right to collect has value that the buyer pays for). The price paid by the buyer is just that, and not a settlement of the original debt.

So the Bills of Exchange Act seems to be irrelevant to the collection and sale of consumer debts. Gosh, what a surprise.

“I also realised how debt collectors trick us into contracts with them, by asking us how much we could pay. When you agree to one pound a month, which costs more to administrate, they now have a contract with you, where none existed.”

So, to recap: either the debt collector is acting as agent for the original creditor, or the rights of the original creditor have been assigned to them. Either way, the relevant contract is the credit agreement under which you originally borrowed the money.

There is therefore no need for the debt collector to “trick” anyone into a new contract, because the old one is perfectly good enough to enforce all the way to court and beyond (they might well want to get you to make a token pay for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, but that’s a different story).

I can’t helping pausing to note, however, that even if the original contract couldn’t be relied on, it’s not clear that an agreement to pay a pound a month would create a new contract in the absence of consideration on the part of the debt collector. Oh, and regulated consumer credit agreements (which this would presumably be in most cases) have to be made in writing.

“[Mary Elizabeth Croft] explained that fractional reserve banking is basically fraud, as the banks do not have the money they lend us.”

Well, yes, fractional reserve banking is odd when you try to concentrate on it. And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence and people not thinking about it too hard.

But fraud? No, because it is not deception with a view to making a wrongful profit. And because it is expressly recognised as lawful behaviour. And… oh, what’s the point?

“Croft suggested sending the debt collectors letters with a list of questions, which if they could not answer, would render the debt void.”

GetOutOfDebtFree provides templates for these letters. The questions are along the lines of “Please provide validation of the debt: the actual accounting”, “Please provide a lawful contract” and “Prove that you have agency in this matter.”

Three things about this. First, GOODF actually recommends that you ignore the answers that the lender gives you, even if they do actually (for example) send a copy of your contract. That seems to make the “if” in the above quote somewhat redundant.

Second (and, well, duh), anybody can ask any number of questions that a lender can’t answer. Why’s my debt orange? Where’s my elephant? What’s the point of Eric Pickles?

And third, how would failing to answer even reasonable questions render a debt void, unless the obligation to answer them was an express contractual or statutory obligation on the creditor? Pretty much the only things that a creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement needs to do are provide annual statements, send default and arrears notices, and provide a copy of the agreement on request or on a defended claim.

So, are we getting the picture yet?

For the rest of it: yes, let’s have fun with calls from debt collectors (but they are mostly normal people just like you, doing their best); yes, let’s look at how we do banking (but simply defaulting would affect normal people just like you as much or more than it would the bankers); and yes, by all means let’s occupy various parks and squares.

Oh yes, the Occupy movement. Turns out there’s another CiF piece up today, part of which (the final third) is written by “commonly known as dom” and purports to deal with “law”.

“Commonly known as dom” is another Freeman:

“The prison without bars is made by bits of paper. Bits of paper like your birth certificate. All registered names are Crown copyright. The legal definition of registration is transfer of title ownership, so anything that’s registered is handed over to the governing body; the thing itself is no longer yours. When you register a car, you’re agreeing to it not being yours – they send you back a form saying you’re the “registered keeper”. It’s a con. That’s why I say I’ve never had a name.”

That quote is (to use a technical legal term) bollocks. Names are not Crown copyright, registration is not transfer of title, and your car doesn’t belong to the Government.

And this:

“According to the law books, a “natural person” (or human being) is distinct from the “person” as a legal entity. All the statutes and acts are acting up on the “person”, and if you’re admitting to being a person, you are admitting to be a corporation that can be acted upon for commerce.”

Ahem. You are a person, you know. It’s how you were born. Unless you’re, y’know, a robot. Or an alien. OH MY GOD, ALIENS.

But Dominic (you don’t mind if I call you Dominic, do you?) is entitled to his view. It’s utter woo, but it’s his right to believe it.

But “educating” a protest movement, who frankly need all the genuine legal help they can get, in this risible shite? That’s not “lawful rebellion”, it’s irresponsible.

And it’s irresponsible for the Guardian to legitimise the Freeman woo by giving it CiF space. This isn’t comment, an arguable position, a political viewpoint. It’s legally and factually wrong, and (as I blogged last week) it gets the people who follow it into trouble.

Even worse, it’s a David Icke endorsed conspiracy theory. Doesn’t that sit rather uncomfortably, to say the least, in the newspaper that publishes Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column?

159 responses to “Comment is free, but woo is sacred

  1. Obnoxio The Clown (@obotheclown) November 15, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Even as an anarchist, I think these Freemen are a bit … strange.

    • legalbizzle November 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm

      And if Obo thinks they’re strange…
      But anarchism is at least an arguable position that makes fact-based propositions that would be testable in the right circumstances. The Freeman thing seems to be an argument that genuine anarchy can be achieved without actually abolishing the state first. This can be easily disproved by your nearest policeman.

      • foundavoice November 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm

        You misunderstand Freemen, which is not surprising with all the dishonourable folk joining in the ‘movement’ in order to renage on loans and try to avoid punishment for certain behaviour – hence the thrust of your article.

        My understanding is (and I’m not a Freeman) that they agree to be bound by Common Law which they believe in essence to boil down to three principles and which doesn’t need Parliament to legislate for. Hence why they always seek to differentiate between ‘lawful’ and ‘legal’.

        The three principles are:
        1. Do no physical harm to another;
        2. Cause no loss to another, and;
        3. Enter into honest contracts.

        If a Freeman breaches any of these or believes that has recourse against another party for breaching the same unto him then he expects Common Law courts to provide judgement on remedy.

        So it is not a rejection of governance or the state as whole but instead of Statue (Parliamentary) Law. Many have chosen this route as they believe the disadvantages of being protected by their legal fiction (their Person) outweighs the advantages.

        A common example shown to differentiate is that of using highways. Under Statute Law, one is required to have a licence and abide by the rules of the road, with the breaking of these rules subject to limited liability (the tariffs as indicated in the Statues). So for example, if one breaks the speed limit one can be fined or jailed or if one kills someone (let’s call it manslaughter) one can be jailed for up to 15 years (or whatever it is).

        However, under Common Law such restrictions would not apply and indeed they often quote the Magna Carta (and other such documents of liberty) that state free men are at liberty to use public highways without restraint and therefore they believe that they do not need a licence. Furthermore, using the examples above, under Common Law, one could not be prosecuted for speeding as no-one could prove actual harm or loss. However, if one was to commit manslaughter one would no longer have the protection of the limited liability and therefore the gaol tariff would be unlimited, leaving one exposed to a much lengthier sentance.

        Again, as I mentioned below, I find it entirely fascinating.

        • Tom (iow) November 24, 2011 at 6:08 pm

          It may fascinating etc. but the problem is they’re just making it up.

          • JackieG November 25, 2011 at 12:42 am

            Most people are totally unaware what a “license” is.
            A license is permission to commit a crime.
            Usually offered by some competent (allegedly) party.
            I see no need in asking permission to commit a crime.
            especially when no crime is being contemplated, i.e. “fishing”. “motoring, “flying my ultralight”.

            • legalbizzle November 25, 2011 at 8:52 pm

              A license is permission to do something that would otherwise not be allowed. The category of things that are not allowed encompasses civil as well as criminal wrongs.

              But even where it is the case that to do something without a license is a criminal offence, it is the instrument that creates the licensing requirement that criminalises the unlicensed activity. It simply makes no sense to categorise activities as criminal or not independently of the regulating instrument.

              In other words, “criminal” means “outlawed by statute or the common law”. There is no possible classification of things as criminal or not criminal outside of that framework.

              • foundavoice November 28, 2011 at 9:08 am

                I believe (though stand to be corrected) that the Freeman’s view on a licence is that under our law every thing is permitted unless prohibited.

                A licence therefore changes that which was lawful before in to an act that will either be legal or illegal depending on whether one has a licence or not.

                For example (and I’m sure you don’t need one), a licence was not originally required to drive a car. The moment one was required, the act of driving a car without a licence although allowed before would now constitute illegality.

                I think that is what Jackie G is alluding to.

              • JackieG November 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm

                So…you agree that a license is granted permission to commit a crime?

          • mohamad December 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm

            you are made up , state serf , i personally find you a trifle boring , go and fraternise with those weird freemen, as you are a weird hampshire hog, sir.

            • Roger Hayes April 30, 2012 at 9:01 am

              Re ‘those weird freemen’ – these are the selfsame characters from history who brought us Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights… the cornerstone of many constitutions around the world… and the foundation of freedom – weird? I don’t think so.

  2. Philip Walker November 15, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    “Doesn’t that sit rather uncomfortably, to say the least, in the newspaper that publishes Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column?”

    I’ve often thought that Ben was the outlier. But then, my opinion of the Guardian has never exactly been that high. Even so, publishing a certifiable Icke fanatic has to be quite an achievement. Are they in a print edition, or is it only online?

    • legalbizzle November 16, 2011 at 1:19 am

      Only online, I think. They have given some CiF space to Occupy, which is fair enough, but the failure to spot Witterick for what he is seems like a serious editorial lapse.

    • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 1:59 am

      Actually Mr. Walker, Mr Mohamad, etc..
      I think you will find that The Guardian and The Observer are the only remaining pieces of media in this country, (other than music and social networking sites), that aren’t owned by Mr Murdoch. This is what “news” lacking propaganda and disinformation / misinformation contains. There are many accurate lists available on the internet that I’m sure if you were to ask the Guardian nicely they would provide for you in a printed edition..?? Just a guess? I’m sorry that your miseducated opinion of the truth, freedom and morals appears to have been attacked and that this evidently causes you distress but I can assure you the truth, freedom, and, widely accepted morals can and are recognised and do not need your belief in order to function. However, it is clear that yourselves are dependant on the belief of others in the corporational con, perhaps for your income?
      FAO the rest of the commenters on this joke of a post: please rally round and do whatever you feel the need to do within your white boys club- I’m sure David Cameron won’t let you down! Go to him directly because if he won’t turn his back on the EU then he won’t do it to you!!!!!!! Good luck! It’s your children I feel sorry for: they will never be able to make you happy because what you ignorantly desire of them: to follow in your sickening steps, is slowly destroying their souls and capturing them as an object of hate for the miseducated and desperately poor, supressed and confused people that aren’t as fortunate to have encountered the freemen movement- some are so conditioned they will just never understand. To put it bluntly you must see the bigger picture.. Who really pulls the strings? We’re all in the same boat and I’m sincerely sorry that you feel there is a divide between “freemen” and “strawmen”. There is only one divide- that is one of morals and you would not be defending illegality/unlawfulness if you yourselves were a victim of it. Please don’t be. If anyone managed to censorship the Guardian, people would still know everything they know now and all that would signifiy is how desperate you are to cling on to a fabricated reality based on the misery and enslavement of 90 something per cent of people within a specified geographical area that are affected by the con in question.
      P.S Many people now recognise the term “pity” as a disease of the West. Stick to pitying yourselves!!!!

  3. Oscar Boothby November 16, 2011 at 12:15 am

    The Freeman movement really scares me – both as a lawyer and an individual. It furthers dangerous myths that can ruin people, backed up by spurious success stories and totally inaccurate jargon.

    ‘Maritime law’, ‘The Law of the Land’ – where the hell did these terms get so misconstrued? It’s the desperate and vulnerable seeking a quick fix whom I pity in all this.

    • Freemind November 23, 2011 at 12:29 pm

      You are right to be scared Oscar…….as you say “thoughts can be very dangerous” especially to peoples livelihoods, you can’t ruin the ruined more than they already are…I’m just being honest. Being a lawyer you are probably better off than most…(I don’t hold that against you) but most people are living in poverty. They cry when they have to make a decision between…paying the gas or putting food on the table…can you see why it’s dangerous Oscar?. I see it as power to the people and a threat to the status quo. It’s just a thought!
      I personally don’t like the term” Freeman On The Land”, the freedom is not on the land….it is in the mind! None but ourselves shall free our minds. I’m talking mental slavery…..thoughts empower people….. especially moral ones!

    • Steve March 4, 2012 at 2:41 am

      It’s the better informed and the non-vulnerable who do not need the services of an overpaid lawyer that I pity in all this.

    • JackieG May 1, 2012 at 1:59 am

      I would sure love to hear some lawyers defined interpretation of “the law of the land” without first lifting off in to orbit somewhere.
      if the lawyer could just stay earth bound in giving this definition that, would be appreciated.
      Where did this term “the law of the land” that, the judiciary hang their hat on, first appear?
      I did not dream it up.
      The lawyers did.
      Explain your position.

  4. Vivian November 16, 2011 at 12:53 am

    This is how the world actually looks on cannabis – if everyone would just , like , smoke it, third world debt would just , you know , disappear – no wonder these activists were finally evicted from Dale Farm – by the Travellers:)
    Hey, its just a sausage man….

  5. Ben November 16, 2011 at 1:32 am

    I’m genuinely taken aback that this legal quackery has been given encouragement and credibility by the Guardian. As you say, it’s not just misleading nonsense, it’s potentially damaging. People taking advice from these people could end up in very serious financial difficulties or – as has already happened – in prison for contempt.

    It’s as unacceptable as an article from a homeopath stating, as fact, that there’s no need to use conventional medicine and that their remedy will work instead. The Guardian needs to publish something challenging these ideas. I will be emailing their Readers editor to make that point. I suggest others do as well.

    • Paul Davey April 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Will you also ask them to look into the FACT that cannabis cures cancer and why it has been suppressed for decades Ben? And who has gained financially from this suppression?

      Also when you email the readers aditor ask him or her if they wouldnt mind doing it from a subjective point of view, being both sides, rather than that of the biggoted govt controlled mainstream media.

      • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 12:07 pm

        HAhahahahahahaha. Right on brother. Fight the power. you spotted + pigeon-holed him a mile off too.
        Outraged, from Pinner.
        Bah Humbug

  6. Scott November 16, 2011 at 7:37 am

    The author of the article above hasn’t done anywhere near enough reserach into the subject to dennounce this “Freeman” concept. Mainly, he has not done enough research into negotiable instrument law and how the origin of that instrument (the note) gets passed from the “borrower” to the “lender” and then what happens to the note after that. The note is the money (or the “security for money” if you know how money works) and thus the borrower actually gifted the lender the very money that is then lent back to the borrower at interest. Also, the questions that they ask the bank are far more cleverer and too the point than you think they are – expecially when you ask the bank to proove liquidity of the so-called “loan” they gave you (which does not actually exist). There are many people behind the scenes quietly using this information and stopping the banks dead in their tracks – FYI your counter arguments above would be considered laughable by them).

    • legalbizzle November 16, 2011 at 9:38 am

      Hi Scott, very kind of you to stop by. I’m afraid that I have to take issue with you on a few points:

      1. Consumer credit agreements aren’t “negotiable instruments” or “notes” – they are contracts where one party agrees to lend the other a sum of money, and the other agrees to repay that sum over time.

      2. More specifically, a credit agreement isn’t and can’t be “security” for anything. The right to collect the repayments can be a security (which is how securitisation works in the debt markets), but not the document itself, and still less the signature.

      3. If the borrower “gifted” the money that’s lent back, what’s the point of the transaction? If you already have the money, you don’t need the loan – simples.

      4. I know exactly what questions they ask the bank, because I deal with this shit every day. Also: “far more cleverer”?

      5. There is nobody using this information to “stop the banks dead in their tracks”. Some debt doesn’t get litigated (because it’s too small, or can’t be secured, or whatever), but it is *never* because the debtor sent FOTL letters.

      Sorry to go on, but this stuff really is completely wrong. I don’t doubt that my counter-arguments would be considered “laughable” by your Freeman on the Land friends, but I reckon that reflects more on them than on me.

      • Michael W Story (@MWStory) November 16, 2011 at 7:05 pm

        On point 3, you have opened a can of worms. The people that believe this stuff have a notion that you have a secret bank account linked to your birth certificate, and that when you take out a loan you are in fact being conned into gifting your money to the bank and having it lent back to you.

        re: Point 4 “Far more cleverer”. You have hit upon something very revealing here. Scott demonstrates a lack of familiarity with government, the law, or politics and uses deliberately obfuscating, grand-sounding but wrongly placed legal/financial terms. All markers of someone who is isolated from power and education, not just intellectually but socially- a worrying sign of how divided our society is becoming.

      • charles January 15, 2012 at 9:19 pm

        then how do you account for the sub-prime mortgages that were securitised and monitised as CDO’s then traded in the United States that has cost the banks/pension funds etc $billions.

        Trouble with many people is, they sound off – anything to hear their own voice.

        So much twaddle – a CCAct loan agreement is an IOU – a promissory note – and promissory noted are bought and sold.

        A cheque is an IOU – a promissory note – any paper/script that a bank can take cash on is cash.


        You calling people like the Fed, the Bof E, [redacted], [redacted] and increasing numbers of MP’s not to mention professional people and others who are joining our ranks?

        • legalbizzle January 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm

          Still attracting woo comments after 2 months – wow.

          To be clear, a consumer credit agreement is not a promissory note; it is a contract. “Securitisation” pledges the income stream from the loan repayment as security for borrowing from a third party, but that is not the same as pledging the agreement itself.

          By the way, I’ve redacted your comment slightly to remove what may have been interpreted as a defamatory allegation that certain individuals support the Freeman movement.

          • charles January 16, 2012 at 7:37 pm

            yes, but it is a not a valid contract… why?

            Because it does not comply with contract law…

            1. Full disclosure
            2. Equal consideration
            3. Signed in wet in by both parties
            4. Can’t remember offhand

            The CCAct is ridiculous, should be chucked out, ‘os it’s now meaningless rubbish since the banks got to work on the judges.

            I could expose ‘stuff’ in law that blows the banks out of the water – why should I?

            Let Positive Money (dot) org

            Change the system… WHICH THEY WILL.

  7. South London Beak November 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Dear Scott

    I am a lawyer. You are an idiot. And I can assure you that were you to run any such spurious arguments in my court, the next thing you would see would be the inside of a cell – either padded or with a mate who would very quickly disabuse you of the notion that property including your own body was a societal construct and of no real existence.

    • NewsBoycap November 17, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Dear South London Beak

      You do not own a court ( well not a court of law ), you do not have the authority to send Scott to a cell padded or otherwise. You may have ‘trained’ in the law but you are not the law.I am an Engineer, You are the IDIOT

      • South London Beak November 17, 2011 at 5:15 pm

        Tsk tsk, News, touched a nerve there eh? I didn’t say I ‘owned’ anything but when I am sitting on the bench it is my court. I have the judicial responsibilty to run it, what I and my colleagues say goes. And if you would like to test whether a bench has the power to send someone to the cells for contempt, please feel free to try it. Perhaps engineers should stick to making machines work as they are trained to do, and I will continue to dispense justice according to law as I am trained to do.

        • charles January 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm

          trouble is many judges dispense law AS THEY SEE IT – often in the interests of the elite – and you my friend are about as much a judge as I am the man in the moon.

        • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm

          Dispensing justice according to law AS YOU WERE TRAINED TO DO?
          Sounded more like you were indulging in your own twisted little persecution prison rape fantasies to me – and all because someone said something you disagree with. Well now i can sleep soundly knowing that you are here to protect us from the evil abominations that walk among us.
          And those lowly engineers who are collectively responsible for nothing more than inventing, creating,and maintaining every man-made object on the planet (including the machines that make your food, clothes, wigs, and the buildings that you live and work in), well they deserve no more than be allowed to clean up the vomit + bile that is left behind after one of your ‘nights in with the boys’.

      • Joe November 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm

        Incidentally, this touches on a particular fascination of mine: WHY THE HELL ARE NUTTERS ALWAYS ENGINEERS? They seem to be vastly over-represented in the ranks of the entire spectrum of lunacy from young-earth creationism to holocaust denial. Bin Laden had an engineering degree.

      • Ian Betteridge (@ianbetteridge) November 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm

        Joe, Bin Laden wasn’t the only one: Quite a few of the 9/11 hijackers had engineering degrees, too.

        I think it’s something to do with seeing the world in a mechanistic way, devoid of grey area which require interpretation. That’s valuable in engineering, but not so great when you apply this to the law.

        All this freemen stuff reminds me of those ads you get promising “three special phrases which will make any woman sleep with you!” If only you can spout the secret incantation, the “code words”, you can get anything you want. Bonkers, of course.

        It also reminds me of Wesley Snipes, now languishing in jail because he believed those stupid “tax protester theories” like the 861 argument. Madness.

        • Engineering's a fiddle December 10, 2013 at 10:06 am

          Whoa, whoa, whoa, sweet child of mine!!

          Don’t start on us engineers!! Because some religious nuts had engineering degrees (they would have, most likely, been electrical NOT mechanical!) And flew planes into buildings/ masterminded terrorism, does not mean all engineers start to believe quackery!

          This FOTL did intreague me. Then, with a bit of research, found it was nonsence. Same as religion, chiropractics, lizard monarchy etc.

          For the folks stating that Engineers are better than Judges/ Law, honestly, law and order is and does work with you to keep you from harm and protect your freedoms. It would be nice if we could live in a society where everyone was treated with respect and no one was wronged. However, living in the real world, we need law (whether you agree or not) to ensure that there is some real world punishment for crimes committed.

          FOTL, you have not found a magical loop hole. Please, your theories have been De bunked by normal people (not the nasty, corporate Judges/ lawyers). You recommend we educate ourselves, I reccomend you don’t take a single side point of view and research it yourself.

        • David January 8, 2014 at 5:57 pm

          Oh dear you don’t still believe a man in a cave orchestrated 9/11 do you?
          That amateur pilots hijacked commercial airliners, evaded US air defence and managed to crash into the Twin towers and the most heavily protected building in this part of the universe, the Pentagon – all totally unchallenged!
          And that by colliding with the Twin towers (buildings designed to withstand the collision of several Boeing 707’s and still stand) this cause the near free fall collapse of the Twin towers and building 7 (which wasn’t hit at all). Miracles what miracles especially when one considers that “official inquiry” stated it was fire that cause the collapses when no rigid steel framed building had ever or has ever suffer a catastrophic collapse due to fire.
          “Madness” Ian Betteridge 🙂

    • F Britain August 17, 2012 at 3:30 pm

      I have read all the things about freeman on the land, and while I love it, I must say that police officers, will not care if its the law or not, they will simply, take you to jail, they will go home and you will have to argue with the judge.

      What I would really like a lawyer to answer is:
      If it it actually law and the judge does not see it as the law, how can I get him to actually listen and dismiss the case.

      South London Beak. I did not like your attack on Scott, I am a common man with a low education, as a lawyer you should be able to put you point across without attacking anyone. I rest my case.

    • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm

      Dear South London Beak,
      Jail for Using a spurious argument in court? Really? That must come under the act of “contempt of anything that I (in my lofty socio-economic position) may happen to be thinking right now” and obviously deserves the punishment of being locked up with a (hopefully) pathological or violent person who would waste no time in damaging or violating Scott’s body in order to teach him A DAMN GOOD LESSON. Deuchsland Uber Alles. Or you could use reasoned argument to prove how Scott is thinking in a slightly skewed manner. You’re in the wrong job pal. Do you read the Daily Mail? – nah, shouldn’t have asked – you’ll probably only deny it now.

      • Paul Randle-Jolliffe November 25, 2012 at 5:44 am

        Interesting South London Beak

        Not least because the “Official Guidance” re FOTL and their arguments is to be polite etc etc.

        I am not a FOTL but one thing I notice is how much the (even the senior) judiciary have strayed from understanding the proper administration of law. Your attitude seems to put you in this category.

        I had a recent experience of a judge ranting abusively because she was upset at being presented with the law.

  8. Pingback: Hilarious – but dangerous – cod legalism | Head of Legal

  9. Pingback: What the weirdos can teach us about citizenship | QualitySolicitors

  10. Pingback: Law Review: Top judges give evidence to select Committee on Human Rights law and some ‘cod’ law « Charon QC

  11. Pingback: Law News Asia » Blog Archive » The law is not the enemy of protest but an essential tool of impartiality

  12. A Pierrepoint Jnr November 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    South London Beak, your comment sums up exactly what is wrong with the legal system in this country, maybe you believe that you are of greater importance than the average man, maybe you think that your privileged position gives you a greater social standing than us mere mortals….trust me it doesn’t. To us you are just a puppet, a faceless yes-man, subserviant to your masters upon high. The politcal class issue the uphold them. [redacted]

    Laws do not create freedoms, they only take them away.


    • David J Mudkips November 17, 2011 at 6:17 pm

      Long on hyperbole, short on facts, chock full of Ad Hom attacks on people who disagree… I suppose your comment accurately reflects the whole Freeman movement.

      Do you have any idea how tinfoil-y you come across? Your barely-literate screed reminds me of how Scientology’s gang of comment-troll astroturfers operate, spouting hollow copy-and-pasted rhetoric

    • Gigglesmith November 17, 2011 at 6:46 pm

      I agree entirely. Let’s do away with these restrictive laws that take away our freedoms! Huzzah! After that, we can all beat each other to death and, rather than have an interwebs debate, just resort to whoever fires the first literal shot being the winner. Swish.

      The dangers of ill-informed rhetoric.

      • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 1:39 pm

        OR; I agree entirely. Let’s do away with these restrictive laws that take away our freedoms! Huzzah! After that we can all treat each other with the love, respect + credit that we each deserve and, rather than have a self-serving, less than honest, impersonal interwebs debate, just get round to my place and have a good old honest face to face chat, so false bravado + lies can be sniffed out + thrown away. Or is that too scary?

        Ahhh – the beauty of well-informed rhetoric.

    • legalbizzle November 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm

      A Pierrepoint Jnr, I’ve edited your comment to remove the more personal abuse. Being unpleasant to fellow commenters isn’t going to make your views any more attractive, and I’d recommend politeness as being generally more persuasive.

    • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 2:15 am

      Here Here.. I think it’s called having applied for, studied for and successfully achieved…, (cue drum roll), a Freemasonic mortar board hat!

  13. Simon John Cox November 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    If this were Law Top Trumps:

    Legal knowledge: 99
    Legal authority: 99
    Awareness of modern pop music: 8
    Hit points: 34

    Legal knowledge: 5
    Legal authority: 0
    Internet-based paranoia: 92
    Personal debt: 79

    In a courtroom there can be only one winner.

    • Arieh November 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm

      Simon, actually giggling at that – thanks!

    • stuart September 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      i think were missing the point here you dont have to be a solicitor to know the law any body can study law its your own duty to look up laws to defend your self im not a freeman but the laws and acts are there for your own good watch guy taylor on you tube and then tell me that ordinary folk dont know the laws and acts . solicitors duty is to the court so they will never tell you the truth about laws they tell you what you think you should know. knowledge is power and courts and lawyers dont want you to know the laws same has the police the information is out there now and ordinary folk are getting more informed of how the system works,and the courts /police/ solicitors dont like it one bit and many have had cases dismissed because of there knowledge we are all freeman but not in the eyes of the law

  14. lawrence serewicz November 17, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Thank you for an intelligent, well structured, cogent, and funny post. It is refreshing to see such clarity of thinking and good writing. It gives me hope when so many blogs descend into mindless rantings of half-baked ideas untested and untestable in decent dialogue. (Er no reference to my own blog. :))

    Will be reading your blog regularly in the future.



  15. NewsBoycap November 17, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    South London Beak

    Well, well. ‘My court’ eh? Not her Majesty’s? Not the Sovereign’s? But yours to dispense justice like a vending machine.And would that be civil or criminal contempt? Yes but a humble Engineer bound by the ‘Laws’ of physics, not a pretend ‘Judge’ – Administrator – playing at man made law (statutes) that can be dispensed with at the whim of politician or ignorant legal jobsworth.

    • raphaelroyoreece November 17, 2011 at 11:24 pm

      Lawyers do not dispense justice, they interpret and apply as best they can, trying to put their side of the argument in a positive light. The laws of physics are all well and good but they don’t give you rights, freedoms, protection or anything else, which is why we have statutes and common law. I do disagree with they ‘my court’ comment because of course lawyers are merely working for the court rather than in control. Law undergrad signing off.

      • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 2:16 pm

        You may need to wake up + smell the coffee raphael. I believe that the three basic principles of common law (as shown above) are a just and noble thing, and should be untouchable. Statutes seem to do not much more than erode our rights, freedoms and protection, in favour of increasing the rights, freedoms and protection of certain sections of the ‘priviledged classes’. Could you (for example) afford to sue someone for libel, or defamation of character, and win, even though it may later turn out that the other person was telling the truth? Jeffrey Archer could.
        How many times have our law makers (the politicians) hidden behind their self-given ‘parliamentary privileges’ rules to cover up or excuse their blatant wrong-doings? – Bribe scandals, cash for questions, perjury.
        How many times have the army and police (ab)used their position of trust and authority to cover up their criminality or sheer incompetence or just plain ignorance? – Racist abuse, Ulster shoot-to-kill policy, ripper investigation, Hillsborough tragedy.

    • Simon John Cox November 18, 2011 at 11:37 am

      At work I call the desk at which I sit “my desk” even though it is the property of the company that I work for, because the word “my” can be used to mean “something that I own” but also to mean “something that applies to or is associated with me”.

      I didn’t think that this was a particularly difficult concept to grasp…?

      NB I am not an engineer.

      • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Simon, its a little pointless trying to defend the context in which someone else MAY have meant the comment, because YOU don’t know how he meant it. He himself has not even bothered to defend it, so why are you taking up the mantle?
        We are all aware of the possibilities of how it may be interpreted, but just from the few posts he has made, we can fairly assume that his noble majesty, the right honorable southlondonbeak (notice – no capitals) erroneously believes that we all owe him our lives, for it is in his domain that we reside – only by the virtue of his good grace, and with his permission, of course. Self-righteous, pompous ass.

  16. NewsBoycap November 17, 2011 at 8:25 pm


    HaHaHa! I like that all Engineers are nutters! Perhaps its because we have to think for ourselves, rather than blindly following rules like the legal erm ‘profession’. Be grateful for Engineers they create and build the world you live in. Without those nutters you couldn’t exist.
    Now get to your knees and beg for forgiveness.
    Only joking.

    • Joe November 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      I didn’t say that all engineers are nutters. I said that nutters often turn out to be engineers. My five-year-old nephew understands the difference; I hope you’ll forgive me if I count your apparent inability to do so as further evidence that you’re probably not to be trusted on complex matters of law.

      • NewsBoycap November 19, 2011 at 2:26 am


        Need I say more?

        • steve March 27, 2013 at 1:48 pm

          “nutters are always engineers” is not the same as “all engineers are nutters”
          Just saying.

        • growls September 14, 2013 at 4:43 am

          Because if they are in the legal profession they are either made judges or turn aside to become politicians.

          I am arguing its Lawyers not Engineers who have difficultly with grey areas. After all an engineer simply builds in redundancy to compensate for a ‘grey area’. The first thing the Legal profession do after exploiting a grey area in semantics is to remove it all together.

      • NewsBoycap November 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm

        I sincerely hope that no one ever is ever unfortunate enough to be defended by you in a court of law, when you are too lazy to read what you have written. I’m sure your 5 year old nephew can manage that.

        • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm

          Hahahahahaha. Indeed Newsboy. Incompetence is rife around here.

          • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm

            I wouldn’t trust you on complex matters of law, but at least you can read your own typing. Hahahahahaha LMFAO hahahahaha – ooooohhhhhh getting a bit giddy now. Am i turning into a nutter? Hey, where can i get work as an engineer?

  17. blr November 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Joe: Speaking as an engineer myself, I would give a great deal to understand why we are so over-represented among such nitwit movements as these. It terrifies me. (Assuming that we in fact are, and it’s not just a sampling bias of being online or some such.) I imagine that when one spends so much time mastering complicated machines, one can fall for the tempting idea that the complexity of non-engineering problems should be equally masterable by learning a handful of rules that most people are simply unaware of….

    • Legal Engineer November 18, 2011 at 10:14 am

      As both (chartered) engineer, and (latterly) law student, I think it’s because, as engineers, we are taught to understand, master, and design, complex systems. But, as I have recently become aware, we lack any depth of training or skills in linguistic analysis, and critical thinking. As a profession, we’re just not terribly good at handling and analysing and generalising complex abstract systems (such as law or human society as a whole).

      We tend to be what Baron-Cohen calls “(hyper-)systemisers” (as opposed to “empathisers”), so analyse human social and societal interaction with a view to extracting a set of hard and fact fixed rules and processes. Hence, a tendency to view the law as simply a set of fixed arcane rules and incantations, that can be “hacked”, with no inherent underlying structure or philosophy – as the Freemen on the Land, and other woo victims, do.

      • NewsBoycap November 19, 2011 at 2:34 am

        Legal Engineer
        ” we’re just not terribly good at handling and analysing and generalising complex abstract systems “.
        Quantum Mechanics?

        • Legal Engineer November 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm

          Quantum Mechanics, is, I believe, a product of physics, and not engineering.

          As engineers, we are, at best, applied scientists. We do not conduct fundamental research, but we do apply the theories that result from such research. As such, we have a view of the world as place we apply derived rules. We hack the system. So we have a tendency to tend transfer this mode of operation. We look at complex human systems, like law, society, and even interpersonal relationships, as rule-based systems, and we try to divine the rules, so we can hack them.

          • Paul Davey April 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm

            I’d like to think that going back to one of the first replies to the first comment, i think it was, the itemised concerns of the freeman being

            The three principles are:
            1. Do no physical harm to another;
            2. Cause no loss to another, and;
            3. Enter into honest contracts.

            I think they all speak for themselves, they are very clear and concise and would therefore, if challenged from a lawful point of view, be fairly easy to judge upon in court.

            The problems begin when the law is taken and manipulated on purpose with the specific intent to undermine a person, from an educational point of view or lack thereof, to tell them they couldn’t possibly defend themselves because they don’t unnderstand ‘the law’, demeaning, and when you couple that with the ‘Fact’ that the majority of agreements/contracts and the terms and conditions within are far too complex for most people to fully comprehend, therefore, surely, from a legal point of view regarding contract law the contract must be nullified as full disclosure and understanding of the terms have not been understood by both parties.

            That, I think is one of the major concerns of ‘freemen’ and people may, although to do so in my opinion would be very poor judgement, argue the case, it ‘has’ become more and more prolific over the decades, hence the need for the ‘Plain English’ society or however it is named.

            Also, if there are a class or group of people that are better educated than others, would it not be more humane to help the ‘freemen’ out by educating them rather than berating them – because you can?

            And to the engineers here, what do you know of magnetic motors that supply free energy apart from the initial electrical charge to set the motor in motion? 🙂

            #luvnpeace <<<< don't forget, that's going to be the future, if you only let it!

            • Wayne September 18, 2012 at 2:49 pm

              Hahaha. Three cheers for Paul Davey. I’ve scrolled a long way down for this gem. I think I’ll frame it. A sweet breath of fresh air + common sense. Thank you paul (especially for the hashtag – not original, but heartfelt i’m sure).

  18. Colin Gardom November 18, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Firstly.. pleased to see someone taking on “Freemen”. I’ve studies it a little and it never made any sense to me. To me it looked like clever loopholes for those who didn’t mind being chased by the police and debt collectors. There’s something wrong with our laws and political system but being a clever twat isn’t the way to change it. It doesn’t benefit the majority (even if it works to some degree). As for debts. I’ve had em and still do, I pay them off like one should. If you borrow you know you have to repay. Those that don’t mess it up for the rest.

    • Elementary Penguin November 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm

      Two points:

      (1) it doesn’t “work” to any degree, or, no more than any other time-wasting technique like ignoring demands or sending dud cheques, because

      (2) they are not “clever loopholes” – the are simply arrant nonsense, based upon a thorough-going misunderstanding of the law as a whole, and contract law in particular.

      But you’re right, if an adult takes on a debt, then they should face up to their responsibilities, and pay it, and not try to slide out of it using made-up trickery and simple dishonesty that would shame a child.

      • Yiam Cross June 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm

        The greatest irony of all is how these arseholes bang on about personal responsibility, love, doing no harm to others and all the touchy feely stuff they think no one can argue with but give them the chance to weasel out of their obligations to their fellow citizens and they’re in like Flynn.

        They claim that no one is hurt when they welch on a debt to “the corporations” but hey, don’t they understand how ordinary people like us rely on these companies to live our lives? To be honest, I don’t think they’d give a toss even if they had the brains to understand how it the world actually works, they only care about getting a free ride on the backs of others.

  19. Ben Lowrey November 18, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Dear author. Thanks for the article. Please would you email me I’d like to ask you something.

  20. G November 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    “Well, yes, fractional reserve banking is odd when you try to concentrate on it. And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence and people not thinking about it too hard”

    What you mean to say is…..It’s an illusion and it relies on peoples ignorance of it’s modus operandi…..what was you thinking when you made that statement! bizarre if you ask me, I’d even go has far to say “everyone with a functioning brain can see that it’s nutty woo, right?”

    • legalbizzle November 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm

      What I was thinking was, I can understand why lay people find it difficult to get their heads round credit and the money supply. I don’t think that it’s an illusion or that it relies on ignorance, but fairly clearly it does depend on people not all asking for their money back at once (which is where confidence comes in).

      But if you do think it’s an illusion, you don’t have to participate in it. Don’t borrow, and keep your money under your mattress.

      • lawrence serewicz November 20, 2011 at 2:56 am

        Well actually, it would all balance out except for money lost or destroyed. What would not balance out is all the promised payments based on special finacial vehicles like shorts or collateral debt obligations or futures. The basic money supply, that is everyone wanting money out of their accounts would work because of well money supply.

        What would not work is everyone trying to collect their debts at once as some debts literally cannot be paid. However currency in itself is only the medium it is the note we exchange instead of cows or chickens or cars. It is easier to fold at any rate. What the gov says is that it will honour the note for any debt. However that is not the same as it will honour any debt. 🙂 in sum, it is not the money suppply to worry about these days.

        We need to worry about people making promises they cannot keep which is why we have the law.

        • Kil August 20, 2012 at 3:26 am

          A fantastic response- well put

        • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 2:24 am

          The awe of law that enables banks to steal from loyal customers and then try to humiliate them and accuse them of lying in front of other customers and members of staff. These banks which are one of only a few corporations that are internally regulated enabling them to succeed in breaking the law or should I say morals to the extent that newspapers cannot report on the matter to warn others and the police are turned away from the branch in question. I guess the banks just don’t bother to tell you they may steal and that’s how they don’t break their promises?? Yes, we all need the law 🙂

      • Steve March 4, 2012 at 3:27 am

        Try to get your employer to pay you in reddies doofus. You do have to participate in it. That’s the point. Try having a life without direct fucking debits. Humanity flourished for 99.99999% of it’s existence without having a tesco clubcard or a sky hd box or a poxy look-at-me iphone on a £40 a month contract. If any sentient human really stopped to think they would realise that most of it is bullshit. My children have the best time of their lives playing tag or walking in the woods or looking at the stars with me. I understand fully that a barter economy would be difficult and appreciate the need for a fungible divisible store of wealth to allow us to trade one person’s ability to program a computer with another person having a particular ability to cut hair but I fail to see the need for wanking bankers to be endowed with the sole ability to create and regulate the means to do so. They are parasites and bring nothing to the table. They do however employ a lot of other parasites known as lawyers.

      • Darren September 7, 2012 at 1:12 am

        “and keep your money under your mattress.”
        The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee has a policy to establish inflation at 2%: Inflation, it is held, is important: it is importan to establish a gentle and continuous eroding of the buying power of our currency (which is why it’s fiat (confidence) money rather than established on the gold standard or any other real world thing) in order to stop just this: hoarding. Fiat money, i.e. our £20 notes, is believed to have value… but not for long and therefore there is a continuous persuasion to constantly exchange it for good and services, and continue to go to work (production) to do so.

        That’s the detail. Simply put: we can’t put it under our mattress, its buying power will erode.

  21. Pingback: Freemen on the land

  22. Paul McConville November 19, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    I wonder if the FOTL advocates have considered what the situation is here in Scotland? Magna Carta was signed by an English KIng and the “feudal” nature of law that they seem to expound was of a very different structure north of the border. Anyway, the Scottish feudal system has been abolished!

    On the other hand, there is an echo of the “we must give our consent to be governed by statute” argument in the position, based, I think, on the Declaration of Arbroath, that the Scottish people are sovereign, not the Crown and not Parliament, which is being deployed by some independence campaigners as an argument to declare an independence referendum “illegal” if it comes from legislation passed by Westminster, rather than by Holyrood.

    Finally, I wanted to say what a fine blog you have, with the balance between serious legal points and excellent humour just right!

    And seeing the teddy bear in the Guardian was cool too!

  23. JackieG November 19, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Does the Guardian usually charge for comments?
    “At any rate, they’ve given a Comment Is Free platform….”
    Or, do just free men get a freebie?
    All this free stuff is confusing.
    Like the Guardians freedom to spread malarkey under the guise of legal advice.
    “In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King”.
    Your argument is so far off point it is to be ridiculed.
    held in contempt actually.
    We have a paper in N.A like the Guardian.
    Its called The National Enquirer.
    You are not dealing with some rookie here.
    If your authors charges, accusations and ludicrous assumptions were put to the acid test he would be in a lot of trouble.
    He would be thrown out of court on his head along with a bill for court costs stapled to his ass.
    Equity or law it matters not.
    He will go down face first before the gate even opens.
    I have learned the secret to getting the judges to obey the rules.
    its actually quite simple.
    And there is no way under the sun this clown you have produced will ever get a chance to argue anything before the judge.
    He has no evidence to back anything resembling an argument.
    You, I and everyone else here knows it too.
    There isn’t even a sock puppet in England that believes him.
    When they must first put their reputation and commercial liability on the line.
    So….you are all alone sonny boy.
    Your clients/partners position is; Quote:
    “That’s wrong, of course; but I won’t attempt to counter any of his legal claims”

    Is precarious and down right obnoxious to say the least.
    And you want to stand and stake your claim on this fellows shoulders???
    That’s quick sand your standing in.

    • legalbizzle November 20, 2011 at 10:55 am

      Is that me you’re talking about? I think that I have countered his legal claims, you know…

      • JackieG November 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm

        I have a letter from the Federal Minister of Finance claiming I; “exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restraints and restrictions.”
        That is my starting point.

        • legalbizzle November 20, 2011 at 6:10 pm

          Not in the slightest, and frankly I doubt your claim – feel free to post a URL where we can see this letter. Please note, however, that even it were true it has no relevance to the UK.

          • JackieG November 22, 2011 at 1:13 am

            Here is the link.
            .I will post what I sent to get this letter a little later.

            • Legal Weasel November 22, 2011 at 2:15 am

              Um, no. What you have there is a letter that merely notes (and without prejudice, too!) that you claim to “exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restraints and restrictions.”

              It’s simply telling you what you claimed in your letter, and noting it. It’s not, in any way at all, agreeing with your claims themselves.

              In no way at all does it acknowledge, even in the slightest, that you “exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restraints and restrictions.”

              It’s a polite, and wordy, way of saying “I got your letter”.
              No more, and no less.

              • JackieG November 23, 2011 at 12:56 am

                You have made assumptions with no evidence backing them up
                You are mislead in your interpretation of “noted” and ‘without prejudice”.
                I did not dispute what she said.
                And she is the one who is celebrating the claim of right by noting it.
                I sent her back a notice of default thereby firming up what she said.
                And everyone knows that a non-response is an agreement to the facts.

                • LegalWeasel November 23, 2011 at 12:08 pm

                  I’m pretty sure I’m not misled, in anyway. What do “noted” and “without prejudice” mean?

                  And can you cite authority for your assertion, which “everyone knows”, that a non-response is an agreement to the facts?

                  • JackieG November 24, 2011 at 1:15 am

                    not·ed   [noh-tid] Show IPA
                    well-known; celebrated; famous: a noted scholar.

                    “without prejudice”
                    Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
                    In other words, if I do not agree with what she says I can take issue with it.

                    And as far as “everyone knows” that a non-response is an agreement to the facts.
                    According to the rules of court, this is the law in the courts of the UK too.
                    1. A workman is worthy of his hire

                    (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II

                    Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: “It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.”).

                    2. All are equal under the Law

                    (God’s Law–Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25;

                    Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke

                    10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”).

                    3. In Commerce truth is sovereign

                    (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor.

                    13:8. Legal maxim: “To lie is to go against the mind.”

                    4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit

                    (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt.

                    5:33; James 5:12).

                    5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce

                    (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”).

                    6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).

                    7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved

                    (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”).

                    8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default

                    (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.”).

                    9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility

                    (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.)

                    (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”).

                    10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment

                    (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.”).

                    All law in Canada can be reduced (codified) to the above ten listed maxims.

                    • LegalWeasel November 24, 2011 at 1:28 am

                      Oh. Wow.

                    • legalbizzle November 25, 2011 at 8:37 pm

                      Right then…

                      The use of “noted” in that letter is very clearly as the past participle of the verb, rather than as an adjective:

                      (a) To observe carefully; notice.
                      (b) To make a note of; write down.
                      (c) To show; indicate.
                      (d) To make mention of; remark.

                      No mention of “agree” there…

                      “without prejudice”: A phrase used to enable parties to negotiate … without implying any admission.” In other words, she is expressly NOT agreeing to your claim.

                      …and there is NO principle of English law that non-response is an agreement to the facts. Quite the opposite: either express agreement or assent by conduct (which means more than inaction) is required.

                      Regarding your biblical quotes, I’ll simply note that they are not incorporated into the English or Scottish law. I have no direct knowledge of Canadian law, but I’ll bet both my kidneys that the same is true there*.

                      *Woo disclaimer: no contract, no consent, no jurisdiction, etc etc

                    • Paul Davey April 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm


                      On her coronation did the queen swear to uphold the laws of god or the legislation of government and it’s lawyers?

                      I am of the understanding that it was the former and therefore should the maxims etc that were pointed out above not reign as law?

                      If not, supposing that the queen ‘did’ swear to uphold the laws of God, when was this changed to upholding legislation instead?

                      Where the people/subjects of England or the U.K. notified of any such changes if in fact there was a change from one to the other?

    • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 2:40 am

      Speak for yourself- I consider all Freemen points in all countries mentioned so far both rational, proportional and most definitely reasonable. Perhaps physicists are nutters because they tend to be more aware of reality and not 3D con in a black box. Can you see the threat of the engineer if they are perhaps capable of the logical aspects of life, visualising such works and accepting on a daily basis that the air between our faces and our keyboards are full of millions of protons containing black holes containing all the information in the universe.. Starry eyed stuff compared to simply being a rule follower and a law interpreter. Most people who have come to encounter this issue who veer on the side of freemen are actually quite educated and capable of making a point.. Freedom is only secured when it is fought for, you should all know that..

  24. pablo November 19, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    “to an extent the system relies on confidence and people not thinking about it too hard”

    There you have it.

    Best restore confidence by having ‘the system’ behave itself and serve society (as it should) and improve eduction so that thinking is less of a chore for people?

  25. Joe November 20, 2011 at 2:37 am

    I’m not entirely sure why I can’t reply to newsboycap’s posts above, but in short, (a) it’s unlikely that anyone would ever be defended by me in a court of law, since I am not a lawyer; and (b) it would probably be a good idea to familiarise yourself with the basics of set theory. “All members of set A are also members of set B” is not the same thing as “all members of set B are also members of set A”. For example, all members of the set A, which consists of all even integers, are also members of the set B, which consists of all integers – but while the number 8 is a member of set B, it is clearly not a member of set A. (And just to avoid any ambiguity, set A in the example under discussion would be “nutters”, set B would be “engineers”, and “8” would be “an engineer who is not a nutter”.)

    • legalbizzle November 20, 2011 at 10:54 am

      I think it’s because WP only allows three levels of comment replies. I’l have a poke around the settings and see if I can change that.

    • legalbizzle November 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      The replies thing is fixed now. Sorry about that.

    • NewsBoycap November 20, 2011 at 8:10 pm

      I do apologise I didn’t know we were using set theory when you said ALWAYS.

      of·ten   [aw-fuhn, of-uhn; awf-tuhn, of-]
      1. many times; frequently: He visits his parents as often as he can.
      2. in many cases.
      3. Archaic . frequent

      al·ways   [awl-weyz, -weez]
      1.every time; on every occasion; without exception: He always works on Saturday.
      2.all the time; continuously; uninterruptedly: There is always some pollution in the air.
      3.forever: Will you always love me? any event; at any time; if necessary: She can always move back with her parents.

  26. foundavoice November 20, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Point of order: Lawful Rebellion and being a Freeman are two entirely different things. That many Freemen (or wannabe Freemen) would also enter Lawful Rebellion is understandable as both are a different kind of rejection of state control.

    I’m looking at the Freeman stuff (not an engineer or a nutter) and find it fascinating, not least as it forces one to ask what is liberty and how do we protect it. From a philosophical point of view it is a valid intellectual pursuit – if not only learning how to avoid all the NWO nutters. However, I’m far from convinced that I will try to become one.

    Lawful Rebellion under Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta was last envoked by the Lords patent in the early 2000’s when they followed the provisions of said Carta under Chapter 61, which means that anyone (in theory) can enter Lawful (and that is the key word) Rebellion by swearing loyalty to the Barons instead of the Sovereign. The first test cases in court will be very interesting.
    South London Beak [redacted] would do well to remember that they are not his courts they are the Queen’s and the Queen’s authority is derived from the people (Blackstone is clear on this) and therefore any court is as much ‘mine’ as it is ‘his.

    • LegalWeasel November 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      However, the vast majority of Magna Carta has been repealed over the years, and the section which you refer to is no longer present n the statute in force, and so is not good law.

      The three sections of Magna Carta still in effect (Confirmation of Liberties, Liberties of London, &c, and Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice) can be read here:

      • NewsBoycap November 20, 2011 at 9:38 pm


        Your link is to Magna Carta 1297, Lawful Rebellion invokes Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 which as I understand cannot (you can correct me if I’m wrong) be repealed.

        • LegalWeasel November 20, 2011 at 9:52 pm

          They are essentially versions of the same charter, and it is the 1297 version, as issued by King Edward I, which remains on the statute books. The 1215 version is no longer law, in any form. And there is no such thing, within the British constitution, as a law that cannot be repealed (“no parliament can bind its successors” is how this fundamental rule is usually phrased).

          As the Wikpedia entry on Magna Carta says: “Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215 and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions, which included the most direct challenges to the monarch’s authority to date. The charter first passed into law in 1225. The 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.”

          • NewsBoycap November 20, 2011 at 10:55 pm

            Thank you for the prompt reply.
            Was MC 1215 not part of the Common Law for 50 years before the creation of Parliament and thus not subject to whims of Parliament?
            The Barons committee invoked in February 2001 by 80 members of the Lords seem to to think MC1215 is still part of the Constitution.


            • LegalWeasel November 20, 2011 at 11:07 pm

              Being “in force” before the creation of Parliament doesn’t matter, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, and, under the British Constitution, can pass and repeal any such laws as it wishes (and this includes codifying, and altering, common law).

              There are no “entrenched” laws beyond its reach. (I’ll not get into a discussion of what exactly “common law” and “statute law” are, as it’s not relevant here; but a charter is not common law.)

              And the peers in question can think what they like, and hand whatever they want to the Queen. That doesn’t mean the 1215 charter continues to have any force in law. And it doesn’t. as the older charter is not law, whatever they might have wished. Besides which, the standing of those peers as “barons of the kingdom”, and, indeed, whether there remain any such, is clearly open to argument.

              • NewsBoycap November 21, 2011 at 12:16 am

                Thank you, very interesting.

              • 007Pad-Brat November 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm

                “the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, and, under the British Constitution, can pass and repeal any such laws as it wishes”

                That is another perception of paradigm that can be broken, which is now in the process.

                The above statement is only a psychological expression of a collective enterprise, that is backed and supported by the law society.

          • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 2:59 am

            LeagalWeasel I am wondering if perhaps you started and finished your law degree before the internet became popularly used.. Although it can be an excellent point of reference I’m afraid it can be amended by almost anyone and is therefore commonly known in all law teachings as unreliable although I am not actually disputing the info, just making a point. (I shall check it elsewhere at another time in the near future unless you can post a more reliable link)

      • foundavoice November 21, 2011 at 2:26 am

        Hi Legal Weasle,

        The argument is that the MC1215 is a treaty between the people, the Sovereign and the Lords and cannot be undone. Subsequent adoption of MC1215 by different Parliaments in varying guises in 1229 and 1297 are statue laws.

        Indeed, this is the position of the Lords in 2000:

        “Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.

        “Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.”




        • LegalWeasel November 21, 2011 at 10:35 am

          What you is it sort of true – but the fact that it was a treaty, and not an Act, does not mean it still caries weight or is in force, or can be relied upon. Especially so since the Sovereign Parliament has explicitly repealed many of it articles which were implemented in stature. To argue otherwise would lead us to have to follow the many other treaties made before parliament came into existence, without being able to alter them. That is clearly not the case. In the many hundreds of years since Magna Carta we have developed the law, and the constitution, and Parliament is now sovereign, and cannot be bound.

          And, as I said, you also have to consider the question of standing. The Magna Carts was surely not a charted for the benefit of common people; it was for the benefit of the barons, and they agreed it with the king.

          You may carry on arguing that it should be so, but it is not.

          • foundavoice November 22, 2011 at 4:53 am

            Their argument is that the three estates, the commoners, the Barons and the King came together to sign the Charta for ever and all time in a peace treaty. I doubt that the Barons could have forced John to sign without common support, but, regardless, it is irrelevant. The liberties were for all.

            History has shown that, each time the provisions of the Charta have been irrevocably breached by those holding office, they have found themselves disposed of and the rights reinstated even stronger. The Declaration of Rights and the placement of William & Mary being the last such action. The Bill of Rights then cemented the DoR in to statute law and, the argument goes, Parliament can only ever undo the statutes but not the DoR on which they are built.

            Regardless – and as a point of order as it is key to understanding Lawful Rebellion – Parliament is not sovereign but the Monarch is, and any sovereignty Parliament assumes is through the Monarch. In turn, the Monarch’s sovereignty is implictly given by the people in return for upholding the Coronation Oath, which protects certain laws (freedoms and liberties). As we know that the Monarch cannot be above the law (cf. most law books) and as we know the Monarch is only legitimate by adhering to the Coronation Oath (by definition) then surely it must follow that the powers of sovereignty granted to Parliament to act in our names via our Monarch must also be limited to the same extent.

            That it may currently not be so, does not mean that the lawful rights have been lost nor does it mean that Parliament is currently acting within the limits in which it should. Lawful Rebellion acts upon this area for remedy and practitioners are well within their rights to do so – that is not the same as saying they are right, and even if they are, whether they will win.

            One will find they genuinely feel what they are doing is just and right and they are pursuing peaceful remedy through the courts.

          • JackieG November 22, 2011 at 7:37 am

            I do not think the MC is a treaty, charter or any other such related notion.
            It is a “covenant”.
            Look the meaning of that up.

        • Dorothy of Oz ;) January 26, 2013 at 3:00 am

          Thanks 🙂

      • johnny o'fam: vanr July 6, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        The Magna Carta can not be repealed as it is a Declaratory Statute, it does not owe its existence TO Parliament but the PEOPLE, it is a maxim of law that “that which is created can not be greater than its creator” [Romans 13:1], Parliament owes its authority TO the people and Magna Carta.

        Magna Carta is a Concession of what is the most fundamental law in Britain, the common law.

    • legalbizzle November 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      Hi, foundavoice. I’ve redacted your comment, because I think that it works better without the abuse.

      Regarding “lawful rebellion”, please could you post a link to a credible source for the case that you’re referring to?

      • foundavoice November 21, 2011 at 2:18 am

        Hi legalbizzle,

        A good place to start as it sets out the arguments clearly is:

        It also contains links within the prose to main stream media’s reporting of the intention to submit and subsequent submission thereof of the petition.

        Other interesting arguments are there, too.


        P.S. I would appreciate it if you allowed this post-script to stand. Your redaction implies I was abusive – for the record, I have never entered into personal abuse on any internet forum. I did, however, caveat my post that South London Beak could be a troll. As you seem to be able to know and vouch for him I withdraw that caveat. Thanks.

        • legalbizzle November 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm

          Thanks for the link – i will check it out (although I see that Legal Weasel has already been in debate with you about it).

          I’ve let your PS stand, as requested – your clarification is understood and appreciated.

  27. Pokey's Dad November 22, 2011 at 1:18 am

    There’s some very interesting points raised on here in amongst the vitriolic points-scoring. It would be more helpful, though, if people would actually engage with each other and try to accept well-made points.

    I’ve spent a bit of time looking into this ‘freeman’ topic and it leads to the very interesting question of legitimate authority and how it arises. So far, the mentions of jail-time, contempt of court etc point to ‘legal authority’ backed by force (or de facto authority) rather than legitimate lawful authority. I’m fascinated to know how when a human being is born he is immediately assumed to fall under the jurisdiction some particular rules. Maybe one of the engineeers could explain this to the rest of us!

    Also, those who claim that debts ought to be paid back should maybe consider the difference between loans made by loan sharks, and loans made by banking institutions.

    Loan sharks typically advance an amount of money that actually exists when making a loan to a borrower. This is money that they could have otherwise spent themselves on baseball bats, knuckle-dusters or any other item available for purchase. If we assume a contract is signed, which may or may not contain unfair terms, it can at least be said that both parties have contracted in good faith and provided consideration.

    When banks loan money to borrowers, this money does not exist until it is created by the signing of the loan agreement. In effect, the money created counterfeits all the existing money that circulates in the economy at the point prior to the creation of the loan agreement. A tiny proportion of each penny of this existing money is ‘silently stolen’ by the reduction in purchasing power that the increase in the money supply (the amount of the new loan) brings.

    As previously pointed out above, the money supply must increase exponentially. Its like a balloon that is slowly being inflated. It may appear a stable system but it is systemically unstable, not to mention fraudulent.

  28. foundavoice November 22, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Hi Pokey’s Dad,

    I find those trying to use the Freeman position to avoid paying debt disingenuous and in breach of their principle to be honourable in their contracts.

    The tenuous basis by which they seek to avoid paying is that they can prove that the lender has ‘invented’ the money that was lent and therefore as it didn’t exist then the creditor cannot have suffered a loss by the debtor walking away.

    A quasi position is once the amount lent is paid back, then interest charges can be avoided for the same reasons.

    However, the fact is that debtor entered in to willful contract and has received the amount promised – the creditor has satisfied his side of the agreement. So the money did intially exist was provided and used by the debtor. It matters not that it may have been electronic as, you undoubtedly know, money can take many forms. The debtor received and used the value.

    In return for that credit, the debtor has also agreed to pay a sum on top by way of compensation to the creditor (interest), which also must be paid owing to the agreed contract and failure to do this will mean the the creditor has suffered a loss.

    This type of action is not compatible with being a Freeman, as I understand it.

    The other tactics mentioned in the article, such as legal loopholes (if they exist), may be valid but are not Freeman driven.

  29. JackieG November 26, 2011 at 12:38 am

    legalbizzle November 25, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    Right then…

    The use of “noted” in that letter is very clearly as the past participle of the verb, rather than as an adjective:

    (a) To observe carefully; notice.
    (b) To make a note of; write down.
    (c) To show; indicate.
    (d) To make mention of; remark.

    No mention of “agree” there…

    “without prejudice”: A phrase used to enable parties to negotiate … without implying any admission.” In other words, she is expressly NOT agreeing to your claim.

    …and there is NO principle of English law that non-response is an agreement to the facts. Quite the opposite: either express agreement or assent by conduct (which means more than inaction) is required.

    Regarding your biblical quotes, I’ll simply note that they are not incorporated into the English or Scottish law. I have no direct knowledge of Canadian law, but I’ll bet both my kidneys that the same is true there*.

    *Woo disclaimer: no contract, no consent, no jurisdiction, etc etc

    Come, come, come….mr legalbizzle,
    You and I both know what is up for dispute here.
    And it is nothing that I posted.
    I suggest to you that if an affidavit is served on a notary and it is not responded to in the appropriative time and fashion then, it is agreed by default to whatever the claims made by the claimant.
    “He who does not deny, admits”
    An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth and the matters to which the judgement of the law is applied”.
    So…when she sent that letter 5 weeks late noting the matter after consulting federal legal counsel I think she is “IT”.
    As far as “without prejudice” goes….I think my interpretation trumps yours.
    hands down….legally speaking, within the results of the affidavit served upon her.person….the public notary.
    Every M.P. is a “public notary”.
    They can not be an M.P. without being a notary.
    And neither can a lawyer.
    As far as the “biblical quotes” go they may not have been incorporated into English or Scots law but the corresponding maxims from which they are derived are without a doubt, embedded deep within English law.
    As a matter of fact, they well be 9000 fathoms deep.

  30. foundavoice November 28, 2011 at 9:12 am


    Above you wrote the following, for which threre wasn’t a reply option:

    “…and there is NO principle of English law that non-response is an agreement to the facts. Quite the opposite: either express agreement or assent by conduct (which means more than inaction) is required.”

    Would you be able to point me to a definitive source on this? This principle of ‘non-response is aan agreement appears to be a central plank of Freemanism and I would like to have the debate with them!


    (P.S. my browser setting are playing havoc with the compatability of this post, so please excuse typos etc!)

    • JackieG November 29, 2011 at 1:18 am

      Let us begin with this word/term: WAIVER,
      By the time you get to court (under the rules of equity) you will have (unconsciously) waived all your so called rights, benefits and privileges.
      So….how do you intend to defend yourself after the waivers????
      Look up the meaning of “waiver” in any decent legal dictionary.
      Zippered lips amounts to a waiver.(consent)
      Shrugging ones shoulders amounts to a waiver.(consent)
      Failing to rebut the crowns unproven assumptions and presumptions (within the allotted time) amounts to a waiver.(consent)
      Now what????
      What defensive moves do you have remaining????
      That is right.
      You can not claim back rights after you have waived them.
      WAIVER., The relinquishment or refusal to accept of a right.

      2. In practice it is required of every one to take advantage of his rights at a proper time and, neglecting to do so, will be considered as a waiver. If, for example, a defendant who has been misnamed in the writ and declaration, pleads over, he cannot afterwards take advantage of the error by pleading in abatement, for his plea amounts to a waiver.

      3. In seeking for a remedy the party injured may, in some instances, waive a part of his right, and sue for another; for example, when the defendant has committed a trespass on the property of the plaintiff, by taking it away, and afterwards he sells it, the injured party may waive the trespass, and bring an action of assumpsit for the recovery of the money thus received by the defendant. 1 Chit. Pl. 90.

      4. In contracts, if, after knowledge of a supposed fraud, surprise or mistake, a party performs the agreement in part, he will be considered as having waived the objection. 1 Bro. Parl. Cas. 289.

      5. It is a rule of the civil law, consonant with reason, that any one may renounce or waive that which has been established in his favor: Regula est juris antique omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se introducta sunt, renunciare. Code 2, 3, 29. As to what will amount to a waiver of a forfeiture, see 1 Conn. R. 79; 7 Conn. R. 45; 1 Jo Cas. 125; 8 Pick. 292; 2 N. H, Rep. 120 163; 14 Wend. 419; 1 Ham. R. 21. Vide Verdict.

  31. JackieG November 29, 2011 at 1:32 am

    Here is a little story I wrote a few years back,

    On the subject of courts and the prospect that “He who does not deny….admits”

    “They are trying to use contract law….”

    Now let’s get back to this court scenario….“if the defendant does not rebut the unproved assumptions and presumptions.”

    Then, according to the laws of procedure in an equity court their failure to rebut them….must mean what???


    Which under the terms of contract law, you, have accepted the proposition.

    You didn’t rebut them right?….which is acceptance…

    So, when you have offer and acceptance…isn’t that a contract??

    Doesn’t that supersede any provisions required by formal law and procedure?

    YES!!…..Because the parties are in agreement!!

    And they can agree to waive remedies and provisions of law anytime they want.

    Now I said to these people that I knew that are confused as to why in the world the judge found the defendant guilty when the judge knew there was no evidence for the plaintiff in the case.

    I said he found the defendant guilty because he allowed and agreed that he should be found guilty… volunteered.

    After all…haven’t you heard before that everybody in prison is there because they volunteered…..of their own free will?

    If you volunteered….doesn’t that mean you had a contract??


    The end result was there was no evidence to rebut the presumptions.

    So… the defense rested.

    If the defense didn’t rebut the presumptions…..did the plaintiff have a duty to bring evidence into the case???


    Because, they only have to bring evidence if, the defendant rebuts the presumptions.


    Okay?…so here is what’s going through the judges mind….he’s going… “okay, there was charges of wrong doing…there was no evidence by the state, but the defendant’s came on and didn’t rebut any of the charges…because they didn’t rebut the charges….I, as the judge must weigh…well then, are the charges true as far as this case is concerned…or are the charges wrong?…as far as this case is concerned.”

    It has to do with what’s the intent of the parties here…if there’s no evidence…we can’t rule on evidence…so it’s not a law case.

    It’s a case in equity….we want to know what the intent of the parties are….isn’t everybody out to gain all the news serviture?…..because the news never gets to the facts….they just want to know how you feel about the news all the time.

    There’s no facts before the court….there’s no evidence before the court…we just want to know how everybody feels about it… they want to be found guilty or not??

    And if they want to be found guilty…then we will go ahead and because we have their agreement ….we’ll find them guilty!

    The judge will sit back and he says, “well look… the charges, even though there not proved…. must be true.”



    Free-man Jack

  32. JackieG November 29, 2011 at 3:22 am

    I think your opinion of the Bills of Exchange act is in error…
    “…an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”

    I only see two party’s (me & banker) and a bank as the specified person..
    I do not see the Johnny come-lately debt collector.
    What the banker does after we signed an agreement is none of my business. nor does it fall within the bounds of the Act.
    If the banker wishes to engage a partner, that act, does not make his partner my partner.
    Legal Maxim: “The partner of my partner, is not my partner.”

    • steve March 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      There are 3 parties.
      “…an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person [person A] to another [person B], signed by the person giving it [person A], requiring the person to whom it is addressed [person B] to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person [person C], or to bearer [non-specific person C].”

  33. A Mann December 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    “After a bit of research, I realised the debt collectors buy debts for less than 10p in the pound, after the bank writes the debt off.”

    Well, not all debt collectors buy debts. Almost all lenders attempt to collect their own debts first, and many (perhaps most) specialist debt collectors recover debt as agent for the original creditor.

    After a time, creditors do write debts off, but that’s how they recognise bad debts for accounting purposes (that is, to show them as a provision or impairment in their accounts). It doesn’t mean that the debt is extinguished, although it’s reasonable to suppose that lenders will focus their efforts on more collectable debts.

    Some of that bad debt may then be sold on to specialist debt collectors – that’s an obvious way of realising income to offset what would otherwise be a profit-reducing bad debt in that year’s accounts. depending on the age of the debt and how easy it is to collect (for example, whether it is secured or not), prices could range from 1p to 90p in the pound.

    But Mr Witterick’s website promotes his methods as applying to all creditors and debt collectors, and his customers (followers? cult members?) use them in that way. Cue baffling demands that the original lender provide proof that the debt has been assigned to them, and more in that vein.”

    I have personally been able to prove that Debt Collection Agencies are indeed a bunch of shysty individuals!!They will happily tell you they have not bought the debt,but are acting on behalf of their client,they will always refer you to your terms and conditions with your original creditor,yet when you ask the DCA if they have a copy of those said terms and conditions,they shut up but keep pressing for payment.I have had advisors apologising and begging me to not phone the Police because I have logically been able to get THEM to admit that the whole process is based on a huge fraud!!Here’s how, I always have a copy of any terms and conditions to refer to,I ask DCA if they have first hand knowledge of alleged debt,usually met with a NO,I ask if they have a copy of terms and conditions,again a big NO,so I point out that if they have no knowledge of the alleged debt and they don’t have a copy of T’s and C’s,what gives them ANY LAWFUL right to chase me for an alleged debt,they have admitted to not having the correct information about?Once I mention the Fraud Act 2006 section 2b (ii) and read it out to them they back off quick time apologetic as hell,promising never to contact me again.The other thing is as well is that these people can be held PERSONALLY liable for their dodgy actions in the civil court,and once that is explained to a DCA they hang up the phone 🙂 This is my experience only,I cannot and wil not vouch for anyone elses experience with DCA’s!

    • legalbizzle December 14, 2011 at 10:21 am

      Or do they, in fact, obtain a copy of the terms and conditions from their client (the original creditor) and send them to you?

      Oh, and your point about personal liability in a civil court is bobbins.

    • JackieG March 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm

      I do not advocate disputing the debt.
      On the contrary.
      I advocate paying and settling the matter.

      Letter Number 1:

      For use with just about any type of financial obligation issued by a licensed financial institution mortgage, credit card, bank loan etc. (Does not work
      if the loan is from a “private” source.)

      From: ____________________
      Date: ____________________
      To: ____________________
      Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
      Account Number:___________

      To Whom it may concern:

      I would like to make arrangements to settle the above referenced matter.
      Please provide me with your statement of the amount owing as of ___(pick date 2 weeks out for example)___, together with your assurance that you will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.

      Thank you very much.

      by: authorized party

  34. shareholders January 19, 2012 at 2:24 am

    The canadian ownership and control determination act 1985.
    Google it , the department of justice website has a surprise for you.

    When you are done reading it then make a comment, until then you’re ignorant of these matters, all of you. Everyone of you. Why do I even bother posting on obvious censor sites like this? The author has already admitted to censoring the posts, not good ethics despite his rationalizations of abuse or negativity, let the people’s words be shown and let the people judge without your bias.

    Thanks for not altering this message as you admit you prefer to do.

  35. Pingback: Occupy Woo Street « The Bizzle

  36. judgepeake April 17, 2012 at 6:28 am

    If your not freeman what are you?

  37. judgepeake April 17, 2012 at 6:30 am

    If you are not freemen what are you?

  38. Pingback: Nonsensical codswallop « Avizandum Times

  39. JackieG October 23, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    As far as I know law trumps colorable law every time.
    Federal law towers over the provincial statutes.
    The rules for traffic court being, the Criminal Code of Canada interpret HIGHWAY as a road to which the public has a “right to access”.
    The government goes on to state provincial highways are public highways.
    The Ontario provincial highway network consists of all public highways
    maintained by the Canadian province of Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation of
    Ontario ..

    So….what I want to know is this…..
    When, where and how did I bargain away my right to access the highways?

  40. Saltash Gaz November 7, 2012 at 7:48 am

    You’d best beware, Cornish nationalists are declaring themselves Freemen on th land, they are a savage an unruly tribe, dubbed the Ooh Arr Ey by the Sun.

  41. steve March 27, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Good article, thanks.
    Just one thing, though.
    You might want to remove this bit about the 1882 Bills of Exchange Act
    “(It will be obvious, I think, that this is the origin of our modern bank notes.)”
    British banknotes predate 1882.
    I only mention this because I know how the Freemen will seize on the slightest thing & build a metropolis of bollocks around it…

  42. Derek October 10, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    I just want to make a comment on banking. The monetery system, is a fraud. Money is a promisory obligation between two parties that facilitates trade thereof. The banks role is factually no more than that of accounting and balancing the books, for banks dont lend you anything. Money is created out of your promise to pay backandtherefore only represents your production. The banks falsify a debt to themse themselves

  43. Pingback: One of the Best Court Judgements Ever Written Ever | The Witchfinder General

  44. william January 31, 2014 at 6:49 am

    What a load of crap. Do some real research

  45. Sav October 28, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Thank you to all freemen who have commented. You brightened up my evening. Do please post again to let us know how you got on in court fighting all the various non-issues mentioned above. No rush though, we’ll all understand if you choose to wait until after you are released.

  46. 007Pad-Brat November 13, 2014 at 12:39 am

    One think you have to remember is that statute law are not magical laws written into the fabric of the universe. They are concepts and ideas, that are conceived and written by human beings who are mainly members of the law society, then coerced on to the wider population. so it nothing more then a perception of paradigm. Therefore, the freeman view point cannot be disproved.

  47. Bertram LeFarge June 21, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    The vast majority of people have no concept of the deep, underlying, socially controlling infrastructure built up over the centuries. Happy(ish) living out their Truman-esque lives, never bumping their heads against the side of the dome. The few that do stay in denial fearing a lack of breathable air outside.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: