The Freeman on The Land (FOTL) movement has gained traction in the USA, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and now, Australia. So how do you become a Freeman on the land in Australia (or sovereign citizen)? Well, you don’t need much, and it helps if you park your intelligence by the door on your way to work each morning (if you have a job, that is).
The one sentence summary of the Freeman movement is this: your legal system is invalid and it doesn’t apply to me.
Contents
It’s an interesting way at looking at things…
My personal opinion is that the Freeman movement is bat-guano crazy, but at the end of the day it’s an interesting topic for law students and throws up all kinds of fundamental questions:
- Why should I be subject to the laws of the country I was born in (I didn’t choose to be born here)?
- I don’t agree with that law, and I don’t think I should have to comply with it – what power do you have to make me follow it?
- Why should I have to comply with laws that were implemented by a government I didn’t vote for?
- Why should anyone be able to force me how to behave? Why does (or should) anyone have that power over me?
If your initial reaction is “it just goes without saying” or “it’s just the way it is”, then this post will serve to be both educational and hilarious! I have to admit that I had no idea how to counter the FOTL arguments when I first read about them.
Freeman on the land theory
The key points of the freeman on the land movement are as follows:
- Australian legislative laws (statutes) are like contracts and they will only apply if you consent to them;
- Freemen, or sovereign citizens, do not consent to these laws applying to them;
- Freemen are, however, subject to the “common law” (this is not the same common law as we study in law school);
- “Common law” comprises a strange mix of (real) common law, maritime law, some really old legislation (both Australian and English), and of course the Magna Carta.
- Under the “common law” the Freeman can essentially do as he or she pleases (ie they did not commit an offence).
If you hold these beliefs then you’re obviously going to complicate things if you run into trouble with the government or police. For example, many Freemen cases are related to driving offences. Obviously, if you get pulled over by the police, don’t have a licence, and start going on about how the police are a corporation and don’t have any jurisdiction, it’s not going to end well.
What’s the relevance of corporations? Well in short, the FOTL movement believes that the government, the police and courts are corporations, and then there is this large gap in logic, and the end result is that only corporations are subject to Australian legislative law.
It appears that much time is spent by the freemen on the land to avoid being considered a corporation, and therefore, being subject to Australian legislative laws.
There is a whole currency conspiracy too but that side of the theory is less relevant for our purposes (which is educational, of course).
For a summary which contains a little bit more detail on how you and I end up as slaves to the government corporations to begin with, head over to the RationalWiki post.
Australian legal cases involving the Freeman argument
There have only been a few brave souls who have taken the freeman or soveriegn citizen arguments all the way to court.
If you have some spare time, or would rather read some amusing court decisions instead of a 100+ page constitutional decision (where all high court justices agreed, but decided to write separate judgments anyway), then look no further.
Essenberg v The Queen B54/1999 [2000] HCATrans 385 (22 June 2000)
You definitely need to give this Freeman credit for his perseverance – he took his struggle all the way to the High Court! Unfortunately for him, he was being completely schooled by McHugh J within around three minutes:
MR ESSENBERG: Your Honours, I believe we have the British Bill of Rights, as I have indicated in my documents. I am not really competent to argue because – – –
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. After all, Magna Carta was the result of an agreement between the barons and King John and the barons themselves had their own courts, had their own armies, they, in effect, levied what we would call taxes today and they were concerned to protect themselves against the growth of the central power of the royal government, the central government, and that is how Magna Carta came into existence, but modern Parliament did not arise until late in the 17th century and the early struggle was between the King and the barons. We are dealing now with the question of the legislature. I mean, Parliament established its authority over the monarch after the struggles which led to the execution of Charles I and the flight from the kingdom of James II in 1688. But Parliament – some people would regard it as regrettable – can, in effect, do what it likes.
I wish I was as half as coherent as McHugh… If you only have time to read through one of these links, read this one.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana (Corrigendum dated 24 April 2008) [2008] FCA 374
In earlier related proceedings, the ACCC commenced proceedings against the defendant Freeman in respect to a number of businesses he owned and ran, which purported to be able to treat or cure terminal illnesses. The ACCC thought that it was all pretty dodgy and alleged a number of misleading offences, including misleading or deceptive conduct (now section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). The ACCC won.
In the present proceedings, where the Freeman was being sentenced for failing to provide notices to the ACCC, North J includes in his judgment a few of the Freeman documents, four of which he describes (at [16]) as “so staggering in their absurdity that it is difficult to describe their contents.” Take a look at paragraphs [16], [19] and [21] to form your own view.
And on a further document at [20]: “Again, the document is written in language which is barely comprehensible, but pretending to mimic the worst forms of obtuse legal terminology. The concept of the document is wildly absurd.”
I would highly recommend taking a read at [25] (for part of the transcript of an earlier proceeding). For anyone thinking about using these kinds of arguments in court, take a look at [58] and [59].
R v Stoneman [2013] QCA 209
In this matter, the appellant Freeman had been convicted of driving without a licence and breaching bail conditions in the Queensland Magistrates’ Court. He unsuccessfully appealed to the County Court and this was his appeal to the Supreme Court. Sadly for us, the earlier decisions are unavailable, though Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Atkinson J do let us in on a few gems.
The appellant Freeman was a little sore that the earlier courts refused to accept his view that he had “an unalienable right (no licence required) of the private individual to use the common ways to travel as per the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Hmm.
Without beating around the bush, the court got to the point pretty quickly (citations removed):
“Her Honour [in the earlier proceedings] rejected the applicant’s argument that the Act did not apply to him because he was a freeman on the land and had not consented to membership of the legal fiction known as the State of Queensland, which enacted s 78. Her Honour also dismissed as senseless and unmeritorious his distinction between travelling on the public road in the exercise of a common law right and driving on a public road. Her Honour rightly identified that any common law right of freedom of movement on public roads would not be offended by a requirement for a driver to be licensed when operating a motor vehicle on a public road.“
And a few more if you’re really looking to waste some time:
- Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451
- Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
- Elliott v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 161 (14/0066) Robertson DCJ 25 July 2014 (delivered ex tempore)
- Thammaruknon v Queensland Police Service [2016] QDC 31 (26 February 2016)
Hope you had fun
I’m sure some people think some of my beliefs are crazy, such as, I don’t know, the need for marriage equality in Australia. But those people are wrong and the FOTL movement is actually crazy.
I hope these Freeman court cases bring some light relief to your daily reading list. If you come across any other Freeman court decisions, or have any other thoughts, drop a line in the comments below!
michael says
I love these cases. So much fun. Love to see more if you come across them.
Will says
Haha, will do!
James says
authority always wins. The judge is paid by the corporation, so of course they will find in favour of the corporation. Duh! Just like when Crown and Church ruled together to either throw peasants off their land for unpaid taxes or drowning and burning women for being witches. Another favourite of theirs was killing gay people, labelled as abominations to God, which still happens in the world today. I’m sure in the distant future when all vehicles are semi conscious AI auto piloted drones, we will look back at the barbaric personal licensing laws and view it as the corrupt money making scheme it is.
Will says
Sometimes I think freemen, and particularly the ones who comment on this blog post which is clearly mocking the freeman movement, are semi conscious auto piloted drones…
Benny says
Will it’s because of people like u that we are losing our rights or paying for ones that are entitled too….
Remember the constitution is supreme law…
God
People
Government…police..judges
Bassie says
The United States of America Inc is bankrupt . Trump is the de facto CEO of the new Le Neu Republique set up by the French .the United States of America unincorporated is now the Priority Creditor of the above Bankrupt Corporations .Federal Reserve is finished..The Municipal and the Territorial US Corporation are also Bankrupt.Americans have converted to Common Law ..not paying taxes ..setting up their own currency and Banks and courts …so should Australians
Craig Thomas says
Is this the plot of some kind of sci-fi movie? Sounds a bit dull. Add in some aliens and maybe a worldwide plague to spice it up, I reckon.
Paul says
But… Authority DOESN’T always win. There are plenty of examples where this is the case – fines issued by faulty speed cameras in Victoria comes to mind…
Mark says
look up COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA on http://www.sec.gov its a company registered on the American Securities & Exchange Commission.
also CROWN TO THE RIGHT OF NEW SOUTH WALES can you please tell me what that means thanks , would love to get some feedback from you
Craig Thomas says
Here’s a new one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a1mxU_bjZk
Dav says
Your idiots,
Legal definition of PERSON is Corporation registered DJR BDM Treasury HJR-192
All Govern-Ment are Businesses that require customers and that requires REGISTRATION AND LICENCE but no Law say we have to be a MERCHANT OR A CUSTOMER. Plenty say we dont.
(retard Lawyers)
Dwayne says
Great work guys yea fuk the po po. please inform me I want to become aware of my freeman rights as described below can yah help by send me clarified information that will set me free or nah?.
PLEASE EMAIL ME AN INFORMATION PACK ABOUT HOW I CAN BECOME A FREEMAN (NOT EXCLUDING THE FACT I WANT TO STAY THE PERSON I AM I JUST WANT MY CRIMINAL RECORD ERASED FROM CROWN AUTHORITY AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND AND EXERCISE AND PRACTICE MY FREEMAN RIGHTS IN ACCORD WITH THE BRITISH CROWN AND ANY COUNTRY’S SYSTEM OF LAW), IN THE SYSTEM OF THE LAW. OR HOW THIS PROCESS IS PROCESSED IN TERMS OF THE COURT HOUSES AND THE COURTROOMS INCLUDING GOVERNMENT. I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE HELP ME I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN BEING TITLED A FREEMAN AND TO UNDERSTAND MY RIGHTS AS A FREEMAN AND FREE PERSON WHO MUST HAVE THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF HIS PERSON OR HUMAN BEING ERASED FROM BRITISH CROWN AUTHORITY COMPUTERS AND ANY FILED PAPERWORK DUE TO THIS ORGANISATION AND WHAT I THINK OF IT IT IS AN ORGANISATION THAT HELPS A PERSON TANGLED UP IN THE SYSTEM OF THE LAW BECOME FREE FROM THE LAW DUE TO THE RIGHTS OF A FREE PERSON IS NOT A PERSON WHO IS UNDER THE LAW NOR TANGLED UP INSIDE ITS CUNNING SYSTEM.
MY MAILING ADDRESS IS (PLEASE EMAIL ME AND OR POST ME AN INFORMATION PACK REGARDING THE PROCESS AND WHAT I MUST OR SHOULD DO AS A FREE PERSON NOT UNDER LAW OR WITH RIGHTS OF A FREE PERSON NO LONGER UNDER THE SYSTEM OF THE LAW)
[**address removed]
Will says
I’m going to leave this comment here to support what I said in the post. Though on the chance (hope?) that you’re just trolling a mate, I’ve removed the personal address and email address. Have a good one 😉
Phill says
I like you to send me more information on how I become one because I agree on everything I read
Gus W says
I think a big mistake is to accept your status as a person. Persons are not people and are created corporate entities not to be conflated as the singular of people. You are not a free person, you are a free man.
David says
Reminds me of a case I was in once against un unrepresented litigant. She believed she was the Emperor AND Empress of the Austro-Hungarian empire, as well as the “King-Queen” of England. Just to round it out she was also the Duke/Duchess of “Clementia”. (Has anyone ever heard of Clementia? Might be a nice place to visit perhaps? Probably populated by boys wearing lederhosen and peasant girls in pigtails.)
Anyway needless to say her Imperial Highness was able to issue royal orders which everyone else had to obey. I suppose she went further than the Freemen in claiming a right to obedience, but like them she was a sovereign person. The funny thing was that she actually filed an “order” in the Supreme Court, the dopey registry clerk actually accepted and sealed it with the Court seal and my hapless client had to apply to set it aside!
Once in a career comes such a case.
Will says
That’s amazing! It’s stories like these that makes me regret the fact that corporate lawyers rarely come across the general public!
T says
That probably explains why they lack humannistic values. They have become part of the corporate machine. I see it all the time in people who work for large corporations. They scurry around like little rodents, loving there servitude. It’s no wonder the world is in the state it’s in. Because people like yourself are complicit to the tyranny and have forgotten the innocent child you once were.
Brian says
Define law?
Define statute?
Define Act?
Define forced servitude?
Define slavery?
Define extortion?
Now define tort?
Even the legal fraternity rarely have any idea of the spells cast upon them.
Do you think the summary and arbitary presumed authority/court is not a fraud and misrepresentaion of fact?
Then prove it!
Dennisland says
Brian is correct, what is legal is often unlawful. Legalese is a clever trap so worth teaching your children. Do you understand?
Dave says
Someone posted the following at http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/nsw-fisheries-reminding-rec-fishos-to-know-their-bag-and-size-limits
————————–
Dear Dave, in Australia, the People, NOT the Parliaments are Sovereign = THE LAW and the Crown and there is NO Sovereignty of Parliament, Parliaments own nothing but their own personal property, The People own Australia and the fish. We employ Parliaments to protect our, the Peoples Fishery. As for fines, they are all Illegal in the British Bill of Rights that was bequeathed to Heirs and Successors as we are forever and cannot be over-ruled by Parliaments as there are NO Legal Elections or Parliaments in Australia making it impossible to create Legal Law as the Governors are Servants of the Queen of England who is an Alien and a Foreigner to us as we are to her. Dave you are talking Socialist rubbish, the People do not have to obey our paid employees, they must obey us. All so called fines are actually Illegal collection of taxes of which they have NO MANDATE. I exceed them in Legality as I am Sovereign.
—————————-
In other posts he claims to have arrested various politicians and public servants..
Will says
Haha, this is great. As always, the real reason for his anger is one of his other posts – fishing (and traffic) fines. He probably got caught one day for breaking catch/bag limits and has had a chip on his shoulder about it ever since.
Dave says
It looks like you are right Will, that same someone posted:
———-
I do not trust Lawyers as I have ben betrayed by them, I regard them as thieves, if you overcharge, you are stealing by stealth and they overcharge. They are not the Law, they are manipulators of Law for their financial advantage. We have Inherited Laws that they, the Parliaments, Courts Cops and Fisheries etc. must obey, if you have been charged with an offence it must be proved 100% just putting a sign up is not proof, they must first prove that you are in danger, if the area is dangerous, why not put a metal stairway to an area so that there is no danger and not to use the sign as an excuse to collect Illegal taxes. I have witnessed the Bench openly blackmailing People to collect Illegal taxes and they did it to me.
———–
Matty says
well said brother. Ive been a practising sovereign or freeman, as it has commonly been called for 11years .. In around 2012 I prepared my own State of Claim or as I title “Notice Of Intent And Claim OF Right, By Deed Poll…. I prefer to use (Sovereign Agent) which is written as part of my lawful signature which shows Which before I print my full name in “Title Case” never in any part or in all caps as that refers to your fictional entity i.e Birth Certificate MR JOE BLOGGS
[Edit: I’ve removed links, but left the rest of the message here – Will]
Michal says
Hi Matty and others,
I am in a process of compiling and sending to relevant offices in qld about my sovereign status and my laws.
I read the main article with interest and patience and I cannot accept the comment of judge (Mc Hugh I think) that modern government can do what one wants to. What is then the definition of mafia or other organized crime including terrorists???
I need some guidance but also I have some understanding on the common law and a personal freedom.
Please think carefully and try to answer honestly.
Can government-court do whatever one wants to?
Two answers but really one. Yes it can, but not lawfully.
By what law the government-court can ruin-destroy you? By same law that the robber on the street can attack you and rob and even kill. Same law.
More than 2 decades ago my former wife met jesus and he told her to kidnap our 4 children, brain wash them and to rob me of our family home and content. The court crossed my name from registry for no other reason than the fact that he could and did. No fault at all on my side.
Now I am trying to stand on my own feet near Bundaberg and already sent the council off my affairs (preparing signs of no tresspass with authority of HC dolonv Plenty. And surely am preparing the Affidavit of status and my laws. Apparently if not rebutted within say 30 days it becomes a law.
Any sensible help or advise welcome.
Also a comment on a free travel judges comment. Driving a licensed will not break the common law…
Not true.
Who in Australia voluntarily gets the license? No one. We are threatened by jail or fine if we drive without a licence. (I know how could it be solved without breaking common law and encouriging people to be licensed).
So a contract (license and registration) with a threat of violence and no option do drive without, is not a valid contract by the law and by common sense.
Council rates. They are unlawful as the councils themselves (against the constitution and our will). I have no contract with them and do not wish to. They cannot lawfully force me into a contract I do not want, do not need nor can afford. Remember, I cannot afford, nor support that type of behavior.
Taxes were intended for business not individuals. Business employ the lawyers (fact twisters) and pay no tax or a minimum, the government tax us as we cannot afford to hire a fact twisters. But they need money to destroy other people abroad and to feed a huge corruption here.
Finally, the government can do what one is pleased. TO turn us into slaves, to murder innocent people abroad, to form an alliance of terrorists or war mongry governments, to tax us to death. Yes they can but without my support.
Adam says
I concur Michal, I in fact may be charged with “drving” an unregistered vehicle when in reality I was PUSHING the vehicle to a safer and more secure spot (with the help of my mate-his vehicle). So yes I believe you on that. If you have any more information you could provide in regards to the legal (or lawful) definition of driving it would be greatly appreciated.
Vic Sturgeon says
Every politician, lawyer, Judge and Magistrate in Australia should be arrested, We have in this country a law book called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
it is the supreme law of this land and not one of you smart alecs follow it . instead you follow the Political parties bogus constitution with the Kangaroo and Emu logo on its cover that has removed the preamble as shown in the real constitution act 1900 that shows the people of this nation are sovereign and the politicians are the servants of the people , not only that they in their bogus constitution removed the crown, and all you so called Judges and magistrates in the States seem to think you don’t have to comply with the real constitution and yet this is where you get your powers from in the first place article S 5 of the preamble makes you all subject to the Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act 1900. No one in this country whether you be the GG or the lowliest of citizens in this country has the right to alter the constitution.
the Constitution Act 1900 can only be altered by the majority of the people in the majority of the states.
now the politicians of this country set up their own political party constitution with dozens of alterations to the real constitution all done without lawful authority of the people of this nation .
And you guys ridicule the sovereign citizen concept here in Australia when the Preamble clearly defines that the people are sovereign in this country. Te open words of the Preamble are: (Whereas the People) Quick and Garran define this as the people being sovereign. not only that Quick and Garran define that there is no such thing as a government in Australia, only legislators who are subjects of the people and must do the will of the people. Now lets look at the Australia Act: there happens to be two of these, the real one was set up by the privy council in the UK by request of the Australian legislators in an attempt to be free of brutish rule. so the privy council set up the Australia Act in Conjunction with here majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 of great Britain and Northern Ireland. I suggest you read this Act of the UK as it demands that this act is subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900.
Bob Hawk and his criminal organization did not like that so he made himself up a different one that stops it from being subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and set it up to virtually override the constitution Act.
Couple of problems with that is he had no Authority from the people via a referendum to do so, secondly this act refers to a Queen of Australia being head of State Known as Elizabeth R
which is a dead entity statute queen that does not breath, can not walk or talk and has no heirs or successors as it is only a paper fiction invention by Whitlam in 1972-3
also the Bob Hawk Australia Act was signed off by him with a nick name and not his true legal name. I have a copy of this criminal bogus treacherous document in my possession.
One reason Bob Hawk wanted this Australia Act was so he could allow the States to set up the Office of local Government and by doing so allow this fourth tier of government called local Councils to exist even though we the people voted No in two referendums to stop local council governments to exist.
You so called lawyer types if you done you home work you would know all of this and should have refused to comply with any of this treachery but you wont or don’t care because you all cash in big on this arrangement . and so do the Magistrates and Judges.
and every time a court is convened in this country without the required minimum 3 judges presiding and a jury as required under chapter 3 of the commonwealth of Australia constitution Act as there are no other courts allowed under the constitution, you all commit Capitol treason because all these one judge or one magistrate courts are nothing more than Star chambers which have been outlawed for centuries by Governments and clergy world wide.
Why you may ask? because it is well and truly been established that no one person in the entire world is unprejudiced so to have one judge or magistrate preside does not give the defendant/s a fair hearing because of this fact.
all of you who think the people of this nation are not sovereign and who think the political parties constitution and the Australia act is our new constitution are in fact committing capitol treason against the people of this country we call Australia.
Not only that In the commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 it does not allow for political parties, as political parties have more than 25 persons in them, they all have ABN numbers and their own constitutions and this makes them all part of a foreign registered corporation in Washington DC and subject to American civil law.
Our constitution defines any involvement by a foreign country in our internal politics as Capitol treason.
I have hundreds of documents that back this all up and also there is no lawful governance in this country due to the fact their has not been a lawfully appointed Governor General to this country since the 1950’s. as the GG must be appointer by her majesty or her heir and successors.
there has never been a legal yes vote at referendum to change that. I have documents from the privy council to prove it.
Will says
How does this help you? I assume taking this position must make life very difficult.
DB says
Hi, I would like to make contact if you able to reply.
I have a issue that will be heading to Court soon. A Aus Government Statuary Agency has been seeking my reply/response to them since early 2000s for non compliance to their rules & not allowing them connection to their Legal Fiction. Thanks
Will says
Hi DB, I’m not in a position to assist. I would suggest you contact your state law society and ask for a list of legal practitioners close to you, then visit one and really listen to what they tell you.
DB says
Thanks anyway.
I already know the outcome, It will involve a contempt of Court or Prison Sentence if I refuse to comply.
I have learnt so much of our History since 9/11. re Global history, Australian Law, control of so called Money & Central Banking, Legal Fiction etc & the corruption that is rife in so many areas of how Society is now mislead & blinded.
People are waking up slowly, but sadly the net is being tightened around us.
I won’t be complying regardless of the outcome.
Feel sad but I know it will be worth standing my ground regardless of the personal cost even if it takes many years before others in larger numbers stand their ground.
We have so many good people here in Aus, that includes Police. Judges, Pollies, among so many others. Its hard for them to place the career on the line by standing against the system.
Many thanks to you & others that have been down the same path.
John says
I believe you are a man of deception a double agent. Good luck
Leanne Ruditsch says
You should write a book include copies of all the evidence this knowledge needs to be preserved in the public arena. who knows one day Australians might wake up to the fact the she’ll be right mate attitude just doesnt cut it anymore . Its not until you are exposed to the legal system that you know just how bad it is. Innocent till proved guilty? so one thinks but a very loose concept. When you realise you and so many others are at the mercy of one persons not only opinion but mood, personal and moral beliefs its an actual joke to think the outcome can be considered in anyway just. Dealing with the Family Law system is possibly the biggest wake up call of a Legal system in crisis that is an example of money grabbing gone mad were its everyones interest to drag it out for years with the children being the least of anyones concern.
Shazdog says
Hi Vic..Well said👏👏!
Matt says
Vic, Thank you.
Thank you for so simply and precisely facilitating an education for these would be experts.
I dare not think how many, people have been lead astray by this article before you comment.
If you could spare some of your time to get in contact with me, I would really appreciate copies of some of your documents.
pcw says
Vic – I’ve just started to look at these issues.. You seem to have many of the points I have seen raised. Seems the heart of the problem ( if we are like the US) is when our mothers deliver us from the “birth canal” we are entered a trust with the corporate entity the “Commonwealth of Australia”. If we could avoid this we would never become chattel.
Well done anyway – great info..
Dave says
Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki [2010] NSWLEC 66 (16 April 2010)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2010/66.html
[35] to [37]
a sample….
MILLER: Conclusionary law not based on now time jurisdiction under rules of evidence are void for one thing. Two, I’ll give you a little secret. Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract.
Shane says
Hi.
I’d like one of these packs also.
Plus any case law of success of travelling vs driving
Thanks
Adam says
I would like the same!
kyriakos says
Can i be emailed one of these packs please
Will says
Sorry, they can’t be emailed. You can only pick them up from police stations between 9.15am and 9.30am on Tuesdays.
Adam says
Any police station Will?
Will says
Ugh…
the GLOSSA channel says
You cannot be a sovereign citizen – that’s the whole point: sovereign reject or refute that they are citizens. Anyway, as a freelance journalist and filmmaker I have spent several years talking to the people you describe. I can point to numerous court-cases and government sponsored libel where these allegedly ‘far right’ types have won decisively in court. Contact me for audio and video files of court wins and the like, including extensive interviews with the fellow who claims his actions caused the government to de-register the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. A good place to start might be my YouTube channel. Some of the people who follow these types of teachings are full of crap, but so are some lawyers, magistrates and quota-driven police officers. Australian government policies these days are garbage. Until it ceases to be about revenue raising and the corporatization of government by stealth, forget it.
[Edit: I’ve removed links, but left the rest of the message here – Will]
Jimmy says
Well explained.
Could you please email me further information as I was roughed up by 2 bike cops whilst eating my lunch in a city lane way.
Footage is on CCTV and I have the restaurarant owner that is happy to be a witness.
I reported them to CCC and internal investigation of course said no excessive force.
I require a lawyer with integrity and a good heart to represent me as the cops through down disorderly conduct and refusing to give my identity which I am naturally pleading not guilty
I have little money and am quite depressed with what happened. I no longer got out in public by myself as I am not scared of the many drug addicts but by rogue police in our city.
Contact wighton73atgmail
If you have 5 minutes to assist I would be eternally grateful
JAK says
It is interesting that links are often removed Will. I guess you don`t want the wrong info being proved one way or the other .Heaven forbid.
Will says
Is it really that interesting, Jak? If so, then I won’t even begin to tell you how many comments I have to delete in their entirety because they make even less sense than Michal (14 December 2017) or Anonymous (17 November 2017)…
joe says
It would seem you’ve mainly removed the links from some of the most coherent comments here. Furthermore your response to Vic Sturgeon’s rather concise explanation of certain aspects of this country’s legal system…
“How does this help you? I assume taking this position must make life very difficult.”
…Sounds as if you come more from a point of apathy than refutation.
Adam says
Could you please email me links if possible?
Bassie says
You can be a Sovereign person of the land ..toss “ citizenship” it’s admiralty Law and we people of the land are not employees of QE11…..besides Obama bankrupted his Corporation .Trump is a defect CEO of the new Corporation .
We can bec FREE people. These Politicians do not work for us ..Neither do the Police nor the courts…..we need not pay taxes rates..utilities..etc We need to do exactly what USA has done . Get people to revoke their SLAVE names from the Cestui Qui Vue Trusta. They have defrauded us
Kenneth McDermott says
Hi. Can I have a pack too please.
David says
A couple of people have got away with this in the past, in a way.
Who remembers Prince Leonard of Hutt? He took his farm and left Australia. I sort of remember another one doing something similar back in the ’70’s. There was quite a movement going for a while.
Jon says
From what I remember, Prince Leonard and his Hutt River ‘Province’ was so isolated from mainstream society that no one really cared what he did. (And he may have brought in a few tourist dollars for the local Road House.)
Dale Spink says
Sovereign Citizen = TERRORIST
Anonymous says
There have been references to magistrate courts, count courts , high courts ,, all of these courts are Cannon law (Admirity) if you do not do it properly at the magistrate courts you are f,, cked as you have excepted Cannon law jurisdiction,, so no point making application to higher courts as you , finnished.
Will says
It just makes my head hurt so much. And I don’t even know where to begin to make it stop hurting.
marrow1 /r says
When the entire planet reaches a 0% crime rate, there isn’t the need for 1 single police officer or lawyer world wide, and members of the Australian parliament are breaking down my front door with an axe and a murderous look in their eye, only then will I accept maybe the first 1% of a sovereign citizens argument. I’ll also make sure to pack some warm clothing for my visit to a frozen-over hell.
My first visit to this site, apart from the scary absence of sarcasm in the comments I shall certainly try to find time in my daily reading adventures to explore more..
Dave says
I came across my first declared sovereign citizen at work the other day, he had an interesting life being trained by the cia and arcangels… so I thought I’d read up on it, I’m only a bartender so not up with all legal terms but this stuff pure gold, people really need to put the crack pipe down.
Will says
It’s both amazing and terrifying!
Kurogane says
Not to mention distressingly and disturbingly entertaining. Almost anything by [Will: I’ve deleted this name because I don’t want my inbox being blasted] of South Australia is unadulterated comedy gold. We also have quite a few here in Canada, but they seem to lack that delicious hysteria that is usually the hallmark of a proper FOTL. It’s almost like the boring Canadian bit always wins out over the rubber room lunacy of the American FOTL. Thanks, and a great website.
shep says
If we are not sitting under a proxy government !!!tell me WHY O WHY can i not get a copy of the 1901 commonwealth of australian constitution ???I can however get the proxy australian constitution.Illegally bought in with no referendum in 1931 $$$ australia is a corperation
Dave Lachlan says
Shep – here you go – have fun – but at the end of the day your beliefs will not alter the reality:
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth1_doc_1900.pdf
Tone says
buy a first print copy of Quick & Garrun ( commentary on the constitution – it will get you well before 1931 and soon after 1901. Oh and its the same. Alternatively its a schedule to the UK enabling Act – you could find a contemporaneous copy in England with a little digging and $. There’s no conspiracy mate – Ive got a Q&G – you’re point is specious and lacks evidence – contrary evidence is readily abailable
Adam Payne says
I recently came across the decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads (2012) ABQB 571 (Canadian, get off Canlii). About 180 pages of him going through details of what they believe. Some good reading.
Will says
Thanks! I’ve been meaning to read that one and put a link in the post above. I’ve skimmed parts and it looks pretty comprehensive but just haven’t found the time to sit down and focus on it.
Edit: Link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
Dear god look at that index… Here’s para [1] to get everyone started:
This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
Tone says
I have come across the earlier version of these folk 10 years or so ago. At that time they were offering Common Law Registration Plates and exoneration from Citylink Tolls.
There is a tragic side to all of this. The clients I had to deal with had resisted authorities and therefore suffered great humiliation and harm at the hands of the Police. There is a certain point at which the tolerance of people dissipates. I’m not convinced the Police in all respects acted appropriately but the actions of the client were so outrageous and uncooperative that it was never going to end well. The financial harm, the effects of criminal convictions and the emotional trauma left these people greatly diminished as human beings. They were simple folk, gullible and easily swayed by con men. They had paid money for common law registration and similar and paid to attend seminars etc. The unscrupulous preying upon the vulnerable.
As a lawyer of many years and a double major in philosophy and studies in the philosophy of law the answers to the Sovereignty argument are exceedingly clear in practical terms.
1.Parliament in Australia is not sovereign at all. 2. That degree of sovereignty it has is not by virtue, not of constitutional foundations or instruments or letters patent of any person. Those documents and laws are the mechanical means by which sovereignty is regulated and implemented. 3. The true source of authority is simply brute force.
As to 1. – The Constitution curbs the sovereignty of both the State and Commonwealth Governments. They are not free to act as they want. In this respect Justice McHugh is flippant and incorrect. Parliaments are also restricted by the institution of the Head of State in each Jurisdiction. No law comes into effect, no matter the will of parliament without the giving of Royal Assent. This is a latent power and not exercised by convention. Though, the dismissal of the Whitlam government made clear it is a power that can and has been exercised other than at the request of the Prime Minister. The High Court has also found implied rights in the Constitution (the implied right to political communication for example).
What is true, however, as a matter of sovereignty is the power of Parliament to expressly override the common law as received from England and as developed locally. If the Courts find a certain common law principle applies, the Parliament is fully empowered to expressly enact a law reversing that state of affairs, and if it wishes, it can do so retrospectively. Parliament can also impose its will upon the Executive Branch of government by imposing stringent regulatory frameworks and conditions for the exercise of Executive power. As long as the Queen’s representatives consent that is. There is nothing in theory preventing the Courts of Australia from implying a whole heap of rights in the Constitution or themselves overturning the Common Law principle that laws can be retrospective or that Parliament can abrogate the Common Law itself. What a show down and constitutional crises this would bring. There’s no law that can’t be changed that prevents this – the concepts come from the Common Law itself and that law is one that has been recognised can be altered by the Courts over time. The High Court has regularly revisited previous majority ratio decedendi and come to an opposite conclusion going forward.
As to 2. The Constitution itself legally evolves from the enactment of the Constitution of Australia legislation in the United Kingdom. The foundations of the Constitution therefore rest, in a legal sense from the will (sovereignty) of the UK Parliament and the UK Monarch and a vote by the eligible voters of the various UK Colonies situate in Australia, a vote authorised and organised by the UK through its Colonial representatives. All the laws made and received through this process and those made since, in effect, stem from this legal foundation. But neither they nor the laws of the UK that enabled it’s institutions to enact them are the source of Sovereignty in a real sense. They are the method by which Sovereignty (to the extent it exists) is exercised and restrained.
As to 3. – It is the practical reality that the law is imposed ultimately by force. As my client’s found out, when all your legal arguments fail, when you are deemed wrong by the Courts but you continue to insist on your legal position (contrary to the legal position declared by the Courts) then people with guns arrive at your door, knock it down, drag you out by the hair, put you in the back of a caged van and deliver you to a prison cell, thereafter to a Court where you are either released on bail or not and your fate is ultimately again ruled upon by the self-same Court you don’t believe in. If you are particularly stout of view, you will continue to resist the Court’s power over you as a legal fiction and after some small lee-way being extended to you, if you continue to refuse to cooperate, you will be again taken into custody by men with guns, again locked up in a place you don’t want to be and for increasingly lengthy periods of time until eventually the Parliament might just enact a special one off law for you and keep you locked up indefinitely.
The Parliament, the Executive and the Courts only have authority by being connected to and able to command the exertion of force through the people with guns (the Police). Most people grow up and learn to respect the law and thus are compliant with its demands and give their apparent voluntary compliance with it (no individual 100% I wouldn’t think). However, ultimately it is the fear of the people with guns and the fear of the cage (or other punishments like the taking of your money and property) that compels compliance with law.
So, if the Court’s determined to become law makers via the latent power of the Common Law, or the Queen determined to exercise her latent power in the Constitution or the Parliament determined to erode the role of the Courts to remove them as a temper on Parliamentary power, ultimately the matter would be settled by violence of the threat of violence (be it by the police/army taking action against a party or by protest of the people that threatened the overthrow of one of these institutions).
Sovereignty is power. Power generally comes down to the ability to enact violence (which can be economic violence as well as physical).
Our constitutional arrangement like many in the world makes some attempt to create the situation of a balance of power where the three arms of government (Parliament, Executive and Courts) counter-balance each other’s power with no one arm gaining too much power that it can’t be brought to heel by the others (aka the doctrine of the separation of powers). However, history has shown that an imbalance is readily able to arise. How could it happen you might say, in a democracy like Australia. Here is a possible scenario:
1. A republic is voted on and the Governor General is replaced with a President. Other than the change of name and the severing of the role of the Queen entirely (the GG is her representative and she can attend herself to matters if she likes).
2. The President says he doesn’t like this figurehead idea and that the party in the lower house with the most votes appoints the ministers. El Presidente wants to do this himself and actually and effectively control the Executive arm of Government.
3. Parliament is unhappy and starts to starve the Executive of funds, so that it can’t function.
4. El Presidente has a solution and dissolves parliament, holding an election. He keeps doing this until only his candidates win. He controls the Army (as commander in chief) and the Federal Police (via being the Minister for Police) and has all the opposition arrested.
5. At first the Courts resist setting these people free and dismissing the charges. El Presidente isn’t too concerned. He just sacks the judiciary (other than the High Court which he can’t) and replaces them with his cooperative judges who uphold the arrests. With only El Presidente candidates standing for election, he gains control of the Parliament.
6. Now he can sack the High Court also through the Federal Parliament and gains full control of the final arm of Government.
7. He alters the voting registration laws so that only members of his Party can enrol.
8. Democracy dismantled and power concentrated is 7 easy steps.
Be very wary of voting for a republic if it does not involve a full rewrite by our best and finest constitutional minds to address the need to maintain a balance of power. Though, it is an opportunity to improve as at the present time the Parliament controls the Executive and so a real separation of powers does not exist in practice.
Tone says
the end of “1. above should continue by saying that other than the name change and the queens removal, the constitutional powers of the GG remain identical and the President obtains those same powers”.
Frank says
LMAO I cannot believe there are people on here actually asking for info on how to be a freeman of the land – To these people I say (1) Never reproduce and (2) Please take your head out of the clouds. Oh and (3) Stop watching youtube videos posted by deluded fools
Robert Sudy says
I am the author of FREEMAN DELUSION: The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia. It is a free 500 page E-book that contains hundreds of freeman and sovereign citizen cases in Australia, more commonly known as “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments or OPCA. It is a work in progress, but the last update was published in October 2017.
Feel free to download here: https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/download-free-ebook/
The website also contains numerous articles relating to this subject, as applicable to Australian law.
Enjoy.
John says
Most Government statutes & acts have no royal accent or have been proclaimed or gazetted, and you only have to look at the 2 referendums we had on local Government (council) recognition we said both times NO but each state government still went a head and recognized local government (councils) in there state constitutions anyway and against our wishes.” THIS IS TREASON”
Go on search the truth. The Government COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and councils are listed on the stock exchange as COMPANIES. So how can you people say that it is all a joke???????? Our government lie and commit perjury everyday and sign secret treaties at these world meetings and they don’t even ask us, Just like Agenda 21 ect,.
The Councils charge illegal rates,fines,water charges ect. And you say that sovereigns are liars or terrorists, Open your eyes and search for the truth yourself, search Larry hannigan he exposes the registered trademarks (kangaroo & emu) and the corporate Government abn numbers that shows that Washington D.C own Australia…
SEE THE FACTS and then say its all crap and lets all have a laugh then. WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER SHEEPLE. Jesus Christ said not to let Governments use your liberty (freedom) against us and follow God not man!! Bible law the New Testament which is fair for everyone if you bother to read it. As God said I give rain to the good & evil.
In the King James Bible ->Revelations: Get ready for the mark of the beast where you will not be able to buy or sell without the mark on your right hand or forehead. They have been chipping people since early 80’s it won’t be long, as they are already pushing hard for a cashless society.
HOW MUCH MORE CONTROL DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE OVER YOU? As they are suppose to be our servants not out dictators, That is if you read the 1901 constitution just like when we go to court we are meant to have jury trial not the commerce magistrate.
SAY NO TO A REPUBLIC because as soon as this happens all these illegal statutes will be LAW. Anything in all capitals means that its a dead entity.
Jesus Christ said 1 Peter 2:16 –> Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.present your self as living,
They threaten or put you in jail if you challenge them in any way, They take your liberty and use it against you every day.
Search for the truth stop listening to people. “Seek and you will find the truth”
Steve Grydzyn says
Will, aren’t you glad you started this theme ? (Laughs)
Scott says
Whatever the rules are I’m too lazy to fight them. However, it costs a lot of money and a lot of dignity for us to remain compliant.
Fear of financial suffering, imprisonment, aggression or risk to living standards certainly forces many of us into an uncomfortable state of compliance when our inner soul screams “this is not fair” in so many instances.
I’m not cool enough, crazy enough, brave enough or willing enough to stand up and fight but I tip my hat to those who do. Even though I don’t always agree with the fight, I can’t deny the right to do so.
Ok, I’m off to pay another $200 speeding fine for exceeding the speed limit by 8km/h camera detected.
Bill Tsiopelas says
Hey my like minded people.
How do I join
Thankyou
Redpillbill
Bill Tsiopelas says
Dont contact me, u r with the bar, and against the people
Please P. O
Bill
Bill Tsiopelas says
Sovereign citizen is in correct. I never agree to be a citizen.
Sovereign people, don’t listen to this will joker, he works for the Vatican and is a traitor to the people. He may even be a paedophile like like his bosses
mitsy redog says
The suppression of ideology through rhetoric, ridicule and contempt is leagues scarier than this movement. The main rationale for Will’s anti-freeman counter-argument is that authority CAN control us and thus WILL control us and thus CAN control us… repeat this about 7 or 8 times).
Humans, however, should naturally be curious about our government, laws, history, etc. And obviously, humans will draw differing conclusions on the same subject – but the lesser will feel a childish vendetta against those that disagree with them. Consider humans that believe other deemable “crazy beliefs” that do not adhere to strict dogma; they will be persecuted until the end of time. Sucks.
Nick says
Will,
Best start to my day ever!
I’ve just been to trial with a “Freeman” and needless to say, he tried everything to discredit me.
I cannot get over this absurd mentality.
So glad I am normal
VicLegalRights says
I think that it may be remotely possible to put a case to the High Court, it just depends on how the issue is framed. It is all about how the issues are framed.
Given that quote of McHugh it seems the High Court would, if a suitable argument that was properly stated within the bounds of the legislation and case law uphold it.
Of course, to what degree it will never be known, will it?
I mean lets consider this:
1. A person has right to do anything not prohibited by law;
2. Parliament can’t exclude fundamental rights without clear and explicit language to the effect (Principle of legality);
3. A person must belong to some community (Potter v Minahan [1903] HCA)
4. Nowhere in the law does it prohibit anyone saying that they absolutely disagree with the community as a whole and don’t consider themselves part of it, especially in the situation where that community has forced them out without them having done anything wrong. Thus they would be a member of some “other” community;
5. If the laws are what separates the civilised from the uncivilised (can’t remember the case), then one could argue that, should they could find a pattern of government authorities not following the law, that the land is occupied by a community of “savages” and is “barbarous” and is devoid of anything recognisable as civilisation, “terra nulis” per Mabo (No 2) in the High Court, 175 CLR 1;
6. Therefore one being part of a different community, one has the ability to plant the flag of that community on the land, since “The acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state” (again, Mabo).
7. So the High Court itself has ruled that no court, not even itself, can challenge, control or interfere with the acquisition of territory of a soverign state, nor can a “municipal court” determine sovereignty (Mabo again). This means, no court in Australia can either confirm nor deny sovereignty when it is claimed. They cannot challenge, control or intefere with it nor the acquisition of territory by any claiming to be “sovereign”.
I would hate to encourage the “individual soveriegnty of the land” types any further by giving them more information, but with a bit more well considered argument and by arranging the further pieces correctly (few other rulings that would help that I left out), you may be able to reach some position which the High Court would be forced to accept.
Except they never will accept it, they will just decline to follow precedent or twist things around a bit to avoid it (i.e. you won’t win telling the shit king of shit mountain that it’s shit). Despite the fact that you could make a pre-emptive point regarding any concern that everyone would then declare themselves their own sovereign to avoid the power of government. After all, if that would occur then that perfectly demonstrates Australia has failed (since everyone would leave that community) and collapsed into a barbarous and savagery that is “terra nulis”, permitting you to plant your flag of your own sovereignty.
Of course, once claiming soveriegnty you need to either have the “natives” concede their territory or conquer them (Mabo again). There’s a lot of “natives” to conquer, so good luck with that because they sure as hell aren’t going to just concede to you.
Jiteshj says
The law is not static. If enough people turn sovereign and protest enough then it becomes law. It is almost like the spirit has been sapped out of the modern youth compared to the last four decades. Most of the major revolutions have happened in 30 year blocks. When the young people realise they don’t have to take part in a system that discriminates against them at every turn
Gary Wohlman says
send me links to protect myself from driving offences and having to pay income tax in Aus & USA, please
Dennisland says
I am not sure exactly what FOTL stand for but to be Sovereign (not a Sovereign Citizen) is to be of the land, so will obide by the law of the land, Natural law, a moral code that says you will not harm, put into harm or cause loss to any fellow man.Sovereigns choose not to enter into any Government, Admiralty or Corporate law contract, If you are a lawyer you must be aware of these differences, like Law, Acts and Statutes. The deceit used in the legal fiction we are given at birth and the legalese that is used to trick common man to ‘Stand Under’ governments , banks and corporations. Natural Law never changes, you cannot be given liberties and have them taken away by Government (a corporation). A man or woman (not a person) stands above corporations in the worlds heiracy, created by the Vatican, who also owns the city of london, The Bar. Only our creator can rule over us in terms of telling us how we can live our lives, what we can put into our bodies, what we can think about, who we can associate with. All statutes and acts are created to benefit the few. If you don’t agree with me then you are a supporter of slavery.
Russell says
I have no background in law, but it always amazes me to see how many youtube, internet and jail lawyers believe that with their tiny bit of research they are in a position to beat and out whit teams of intelligent people who have committed their lives to the study and understanding of law. I find it hilarious, but imagine many in the legal profession must find it obnoctious.
Ive read a bit on the American Sovereign Citizen and where the get their misguided beliefs from, and enjoyed this read on the equally misguided Australian Freeman. Thankyou.
Rob says
The comments in this post are the best part! Hilarious humour! And probably written by people who refuse to ‘acknowledge’ the law, whilst still happy to sit at home collecting the dole.
Terri Eather says
It is interesting your avatar is a fox, which is an ILLEGAL species to have in Australia.
Why have you not provided the final out come of the case info you provided.
Sov Citizens in the USA have NEVER won a court case. ONLY One case has been dismissed.
Thanks for the info.
Yeah Nah says
OTO vs GaiaGuys was one of the funniest tbh.
Ricky, who is called Rick, Son of Nick, of the House of Riggio says
HCA 2000 Moeliker v Chapman the High Court ruled that the ATO is not a legal entity = the ATO is an illegal entity.
HCA 2008 Broadbeach Properties Pty Ltd v the Commissioner of Taxation the High Court ruled the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are only administrators and cannot claim tax liabilities.
So the ATO has been fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as a Commonwealth entity.
It is for things like this that I have become a anti-corruptionist (no such thing as a sovereign citizen, thats a oxy-moron).
Our government is a de-facto government and not the de-jure one.
As our currency is not backed by gold or anything of value, it is fiat currency and as such not real.
Pete says
I once had the misfortune of representing a halfwit who turned out to be a part-time FOTL.
He had filed a Supreme Court writ which was not going according to plan, so he engaged my firm to help him. In theory he had a plausible claim against his ex-wife’s new boyfriend, but it belonged in the Magistrates Court.
We agreed with the other party to have the case dismissed. When the judge brought up the question of the boyfriend’s legal costs, my client sacked me because I refused to accuse the judge of treason. He concluded with “I do not recognise the authority of this court” before marching out (don’t forget, he was the plaintiff in this case).
The last thing he said to me was that he would take the case to the South Australia Supreme Court, because he had read a decision of that court which supported his argument.
My one true regret is not asking him what the name of the case was…
Will says
Amazing – hopefully you got money on trust before you got to court! (That said, I’m sure a few lawyers out there would risk or give the first few client meetings for free to known FOTL, just for their own amusement!)