• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freeman on the Land?

uptheglens

New Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Since I live in Cornwall, Ont, I've become somewhat inured to what is tantamount to anarchy from the dog's breakfast that is law jurisdiction between Canada/USA/Ontario/Quebec/NY State/Cornwall/Jefferson County/Akwesasne, but this one really took the biscuit for me.

Shared with the provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3257690

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORNWALL — A Cornwall man who has joined a growing social movement that doesn't acknowledge government statutes or laws will not escape a warrant issued for his arrest, law enforcement officials said.

The 58-year-old man, who goes only by the name Thomas, was charged with the possession of illegal cigarettes after a search by the RCMP in September 2009.

But calling himself a "Freeman on the Land," Thomas said he is not bound by legal obligations or restrictions that most people recognize, because he has not given consent to be governed.

Thomas does not acknowledge his last name, which he refers to as a "corporate" name assigned by the government. He does not recognize his birth certificate, which he considers a bank note that assigns a monetary value to citizens. He drives without insurance or a licence, saying he doesn't recognize any legal obligation to do so.

And when allegedly caught smuggling cigarettes in 2009, Thomas said he wasn't doing anything wrong.

"To me, it's not hurting anyone, except that the government wants money from you," he said.

In anticipation of his court date on Aug. 4, Thomas sent a letter to the judge informing them he would not be attending to answer to the charges against him.

"Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all men are equal under the law there, no one man has authority over another man unless authority has knowingly, willingly and intentionally been granted," the letter said. "I did not grant or consent to anyone having authority over me and did not contact with the court, giving them permission to continue."

Thomas said he considers the Government of Canada to be "de facto," which includes the courts.

"Section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that no one is obligated to obey any law of any de facto government, therefor I, as a natural person, am not obligated to obey and or appear (in court) on August 4, 2011."

Missing his court date, a bench warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Thomas is one of about 160 Freeman on the Land that are known to police in Ontario, according to Ontario Provincial Police Const. Pete Robertson.

As a relatively new social movement, Freemen on the Land are gaining momentum around the world, and publicize their defiance in YouTube videos and websites on the Internet.

"The movement is getting bigger and bigger all the time," Thomas said. "...To give us back our freedom because we are all slaves."

But despite the laws and statutes the Freemen cite to build their case, Robertson said all people are considered equal under the law.

"These people are looking at a philosophy and lifestyle that disassociates them," he said. "When we come across a person like that we are going to deal with them with the laws that are mandated. We will treat them like everyone else."

Robertson said police have been monitoring the movement, and said Freemen on the Land have been identified in cities across Ontario, including Guelph, Owen Sound, Toronto, Ottawa, London and the Niagara region.

Because they don't believe laws apply to them, Robertson said there have been instances of Freemen on the Land possessing firearms, explosives and illegal substances.

Bev Roy, manager of the provincial offences court in Cornwall, gave a presentation to United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry councillors about the movement in June.

Roy said they are working to educate court staff about Freeman on the Land, and are working with court security to develop an in-house protocol about acceptable behaviour during court proceedings.

Roy said she wants her staff to understand what the Freeman on the Land are trying to achieve.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it's blatantly obvious that said "Thomas" is trying to beat the rap by using any defense short of insanity, but I wanted to throw this one out to members of this forum who are far more educated than I for their opinion. I just find it utterly breathtaking that "Thomas" refuses to acknowledge the laws of The Crown, yet wraps himself piously in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms at the same time as his Aegis.
 
I saw a youtube video of a traffic stop with a "Freeman" who refused to submit to an approved screening device despite having clearly been drinking.  He was arrested and charged (the hard way) but I think people like this are a ticking time bomb, if they are going to be as reckless with the rights of others as this one was. 

They conveniently overlook the parts of the charter that guarantee the rights to "everyone", and treat it more as a personal permission slip to do whatever they want.
 
The article fails to mention that absolutely none of the people who have tried to advance this bizarre claim have had the slightest success in the courts.  There are a number of people, however, who have found themselves in serious trouble with the CRA as a result of accepting tax advice based on this nonsense.
 
Something tells me that if he were sick or injured he'd have no difficulty seeking help from the nearest public hospital, and I'll take bets on who he calls if his house catches fire.
 
Yet he's willing to smuggle for said government bank notes?  ::)
 
N. McKay said:
Something tells me that if he were sick or injured he'd have no difficulty seeking help from the nearest public hospital, and I'll take bets on who he calls if his house catches fire.

I was just going to say the same thing - it mentions him driving around on (I am assuming) public roads.  So can I assume he is forsaking all the responsibilities of being governed (being a citizen) but still enjoys the benefits?
 
HavokFour said:
Yet he's willing to smuggle for said government bank notes?  ::)

Maybe he's paid in Pieces of Eight or Krugerands?

*tongue planted firmly in cheek*
 
The Freeman movement in the news again:

Yahoo News: Daily Brew section

Latest incident involving a ‘Freeman’ turns Alberta pensioner’s life upside down

The rental-income home an Alberta retiree hoped would supplement her pension has instead turned into a nightmare after she ran afoul of a member of the so-called Freeman-on-the-Land movement.

Rebekah Caverhill rented one half of a Calgary duplex she owns to a Montreal man two years ago. Self-described handyman Andreas Pirelli was recommended by a friend and Caverhill made a deal that he'd live rent free for three months in return for fixing up the property, according to The Canadian Press.

But when she dropped by the house a few months later, Caverhill found Pirelli had ripped out the kitchen and bathroom, removed all inside doors and painted the floor of the master bedroom black.

But things would get worse.


"He walks me to the door and he's yelling at me, 'I'm a Freemen-on-the-Land,"' Caverhill told CP. "I said: 'This is my house, not yours.' He said: 'No. This is an embassy house now and it's mine and you have no rights', so then he slams the door."

When Caverhill tried to re-enter the house using her key, Pirelli yelled back that he'd changed the locks.

"It's not your home," Caverhill said he told her.

(...)
 
If you buy the property and declare it a "Freehold" I can sort of understand, but a rental suite? What a wanker.

I say fence them in, cut off any water, gas or electricity in. If they wish to go through the "border" they will need an acceptable passport and are subject to the laws of the land as any visitor might. We have a few ghost towns they can have and exercise their "rights". I suspect only a few are serious enough to stick it out.
 
I read that piece earlier this week.

This man is a disgraceful example of a human being. You know what I would like to do to disgraceful examples, so I will sum up there.

These "Freemen" need an ass whuppin.
 
Sounds like this guy needs either a psych assessment AND/OR a search warrant executed to ensure it's not a meth lab...and as noted, if the lady in question is paying for gas, hydro and water, she should inform the powers that be that none is needed at that place for the time being  ;D. 
 
He is not a freemen.  Freemen believe that you do not harm other non-government people or their chattels.  Freemen also believe that use of private property should be restricted to passing through without using any resources other than water for drinking, animals and wild plants for food.  Freemen do not use crops, or chattels without permission unless those chattels and crops are owned by a government which they then consider to be public and free ownership.  Being a Freemen is about ownership of yourself free and clear and respecting such ownership in others.

Freemen also subscribe to the Dali Lama that you can use a firearm against only those who use a firearm against you.
 
Lightguns said:
He is not a freemen.  Freemen believe that you do not harm other non-government people or their chattels.  Freemen also believe that use of private property should be restricted to passing through without using any resources other than water for drinking, animals and wild plants for food.  Freemen do not use crops, or chattels without permission unless those chattels and crops are owned by a government which they then consider to be public and free ownership.  Being a Freemen is about ownership of yourself free and clear and respecting such ownership in others.

Freemen also subscribe to the Dali Lama that you can use a firearm against only those who use a firearm against you.

Hate to burst your bubble but the people who subscribe to the Freeman culture are anything but altruistic. They are generally disgruntled individuals in some form of dispute with the law or others who grasp onto the concept as a way to get their own way using a series of websites that, for a fee, provide them with ridiculous legal rhetoric and precedent documentation designed to frustrate the system.

There is a recent 2012 case out of Alberta in a family law context called  Meads v Meads in which the judge went out of his way to summarize and document the entire Freeman (and its related concepts) culture, how it works and what to look for. Its a long case - several hundred pages - but if you have the patience to read it you'll recognize the movement for the shallow, self serving, self interested thing that it really is.

Here's a link to the case. You can download a pdf from it if you want.

http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

:cheers:
 
Anyone remember the Weibo Ludwig case? Although Weibo was a "environmentalist" this sounds similar.
 
Pretty sure Wiebo wasn't a Freeman, he was just a dude who went more than a little nuts when big oil interrupted his idyllic country life. Much of their move to Alberta was tied to disenchantment with (being kicked the fuck out of) their group of D/CRC in Ontario. His and another family moved to Hythe to have their own way.

Andrew Nikiforuk did an only slightly one sided account of Wiebo's late 90's transgressions and Freemen were never mentioned.
 
Scott said:
Pretty sure Wiebo wasn't a Freeman, he was just a dude who went more than a little nuts when big oil interrupted his idyllic country life. Much of their move to Alberta was tied to disenchantment with (being kicked the frig out of) their group of D/CRC in Ontario. His and another family moved to Hythe to have their own way.

Andrew Nikiforuk did an only slightly one sided account of Wiebo's late 90's transgressions and Freemen were never mentioned.
Yup, got it. Similar crap though.

 
Lightguns said:
...unless those chattels and crops are owned by a government which they then consider to be public and free ownership.

If something is owned by the government IE: public, then it's not free. The tax the public pays is the cost of ownership. If a Freeman pays no tax then he has no ownership of public IE: government property, and no entitlement to its use.
 
Back
Top