6 votes

The "Freeman" Delusion

I'm going to argue that the origin of the "freemen-on-the-land" and "sovereign citizen" movements is the following erroneous line of thought:

Premise (a) The government can't violate people's rights unless people have voluntarily ceded their rights to the government

Premise (b) People don't think they've ceded their rights to the government

Premise (c) The government does in fact violate people's rights

THEREFORE, people must have *unwittingly* ceded their rights to the government

The legal theories of the freemen are all about explaining how people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government. The freemen claim that, behind the plain language of documents like drivers' license applications, there is an esoteric meaning which says that the applicant is ceding his rights to the government. The entire system of "admiralty law" which the freemen have cooked up consists of such invented esoteric interpretations of actual law, designed to explain how people have unwittingly surrendered their rights to the government in various ways.

This entire corpus of fantasy-law is motivated by the desire to explain how people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government (with corresponding fantasy procedures for getting those rights back). And the belief that people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government is based on the erroneous line of thinking I outlined above, which is erroneous because Premise (a) is false. The government *can* violate people's rights without them having waived those rights previously. We libertarians might think the government *shouldn't* do so, but the government absolutely is able to do so, and does so constantly. In the final analysis, then, freemanism rests on a confusion between what the law *is* and the what the law *should be*.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is the implementation of

It is the implementation of the 14th Amendment that changed everything. It's tricky. It isn't so much that the law that's changed or or is stealthy applied, it you and your status in law that has been changed by the 14th Amendment. The statutory law is applied to you because your 14th Amendment Federal citizenship places you in the jurisdiction where it applies.

It is your choice whether or not you wish to be such a citizen within such a jurisdiction. There are benefits, no doubt: Social Security, "affordable" health care throught the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, Workers Compensation, public education, the "right" to vote for your local, State, or Federal masters, & etc. But with all these "benefits" come the responsibility of paying for them both monetarily and juristictionaly. You have to pay your taxes, of course. But now you are a subject of Congress. They are the English Parlement, and the President is the new King. They will tell you where, when, and how you may travel, keep warm, be safe, protect your family, educate your children, work, what to eat, drink, smoke, and how much of their money you may keep after you traded hours of your life for it, & etc. FRN's are their private money after all.

Sorry to say it, but it's your opting in to this "voluntary" juristiction that is the problem. After all who were all those people who lived in the States before the implementation of the 14th Amendment? Why weren't they subject to Federal jurisdiction? Because, as Madison states in the Federalist Papers: The people of the States have their own separate nationalities in this Union of nations. It's because the Federal Government, The United States had no body politic. The balance of power was held between the States and the Federal Government. Not the peoples of the States except as represented by the States. Federal Statutory Law could never apply to the native peoples of the States because they fall outside its jurisdiction. The people in and of their respected States are sovereign and cede a portion of that sovereignty to the United States as outlined in Artical 1, Section 8 of the Constitution FOR the [U]nited States.

So who do you want to be, a member of the body politic of the de facto 14th Amendment United States democracy, or a member of the de jure body politic of the State in which you were born, your rightful nationality in law, with a guaranteed republican form of government? Remember, Article 4, Section 4 only guarantees a republican form of government for the States, NOT the United States. At the time the Federal Government had no populous, just employees. It may still be true today.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

just ask the native americans

Hate to Say It...

The internet is full of people who can't argue their way out of a paper sack who just fall back on saying "strawman" without even knowing what it is.
I hate to say it here online and risk looking like one of those people, but I have to call it out when it happens and the original post is a strawman.
I don't believe the freeman argument relies on a premise that government can't violate rights. Defeating that does nothing for the argument.

I hate to say it too, but the

I hate to say it too, but the "strawman" is a strawman, it's true. Presumption and evidence is where the real game is played.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

please watch

Molon Labe. Nuff said !

If you play in the playground...

If you play in the playground you follow the rules. Whether they are right or wrong, you voted for or against, they are rules nonetheless.

If you do not like the rules and/or wish not to play, there are ways that you can walk away, free and independent.

The trick is to leave unnoticed, and hope that others do not catch up with and infringe upon you.

The question is, how free and independent do you want to be? Enough to be totally isolated? Enough to share a life with one? Or an entire family? Perhaps a small community?

Though, there is desire among some to make perfect clones. But even that would infringe upon the other.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


Prove it!

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

I just might have found the answer ...

... and on Wikipedia of all places!

Someone has done a VERY in-depth analysis of the common law, how it "transferred" from England to America, how it merged with equity law, how the courts changed, and a lot more.

Of course, whoever wrote it probably thinks it was all done lawfully. I'm not so sure. It seems that the current system has morphed in such a way that it is not compatible with the Constitution, especially Article 6 and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Anyway, this is a pretty good starting point for anyone interested:


Do not trust wiki, use their references

And research it yourself if it is an important issue. They have been reported for concealing treason. The also seriously misinterpret our constitution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

"reported for concealing treason"

What exactly does that mean?

Who did you report them to? The great holy internet hall monitor?

The guru of freeman treason theories?


And what in the heck are you talking about? How can wikipedia commit treason? It isn't a government officer of any kind. It is a freaking useful, and free, resource, that is usually credible. It's open source. You can actually go there and edit or discuss revisions to pages. I've done it. If you don't like it, go start a "legal gibberish" wiki.

You lose credibility by using absolutes and calling everything treason and pretending you're reporting wikipedia to some unstated nonexistent entity.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


Right, snort harrumph, done lawfully mya$$, it was all a scheme, like those crazy "scientists" that keep telling me the Earth is round. One can tell it is flat just by looking at it. You don't even need to study at one of them fancy pants "colleges" that are controlled by the "illuminati" (jooos) to know that. Hmmph snort..

" mom, can I have a 0pepsi." Just one Pepsi! And she wouldn't give it to me ! Etc., etc.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


HAHA. That Pepsi thing is familiar but I can't remember where i heard that. Isn't that some old death metal band or something? Method of Destruction? Something I listened to as a kid...had something to do with rats too if I remember right.

Suicidal Tendencies

Now I remember. "Institutionalized".


I knew someone would catch it lol

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Freeman philosophy is sound...

...but so what!? After spending what must have amounted to a year's worth of my free time since 2008 studying the various Freeman approaches and theories I have come to the conclusion that many, if not most of them, are based on a sound reasoning and deep principled philosophy.

But so what!? The current system, as currently comprised, definitely does not operate on sound reasoning and deep principled philosophy. Since the 1860's and the institution of the Lieber Code (or even back to the Constitution in some theories) our nation has been run, fundamentally, as a dominion under Martial Law. The only caveat being that the deception of freedom is to be upheld if at all possible.

Espousing Freeman theory in front of a judge, let alone a traffic cop, will get you nowhere. Bureaucrats do not operate under the same framework of logic as the Freemen, or most 'Libertarians.'

My approach narrows to this practical consideration: Know your 'Rights' and exercise them insofar as they will be recognized and honored by the Gatekeepers of The System. Beyond that: 'An' it harm none, do as thou whilt.'

well then

I don't know about you, but I for one am CONVINCED!!!! ...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

If ...

someone trespasses against me and the reason they provide for trespassing has anything to do with words on a piece of paper I would like to know:

1. What facts are relied upon to trespass against me?

Is it because there exists some mere words on a piece of paper or some other fact?

What would you call a determination that is made without relying upon any facts?

What would you call a determination that is made which does rely upon facts?

Do mere words on a piece of paper constitute a fact than can be relied up?

Is the airspeed velocity of an unladen African swallow XYZ because of some mere words on a piece of paper or some other reason?

Hold the press!

sovereign citizen says facts and reality matters! news at 11

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Sit boy!

Good boy! Keep up the good behavior and you still might get a treat.



Sovereign citizen links to own bullcrap vague question as proof of something, but no one knows what!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Just can't let go of that propaganda you have been trained to

use eh? It is like observing a trained monkey.

I noticed you are still throwing around expressions which are comprised of two terms that literally mean the opposite such as sovereign citizen.

Don't stop because I like being able to point out low hanging dumb ass spoiled fruit. It doesn't require much work pointing to a bad tree bearing it.



Reality is all a ruse

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

"Assembly of Freemen" ...

... was the actual name of the government of Maryland circa 1775.

And the Maryland declaration of independence was called "Declaration of the Association of the Freemen of Maryland."


So, the term "freemen" was not just pulled out of someone's a$$. It has historical significance, at the very least.

the thing about names

try to find a group that calls themselves "the disingenuous fake legal sh*theads". No, they're not going to do that even if it is accurate. So they choose to glorify themselves falsely and say they are freemen.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Give Me A Break!

You guys are at it again and there really is no reason for this idiocy! Everyone is free to have whatever opinion they want and so do you. If you do not agree with their position, say so and leave it alone. This is unproductive towards the fight for Liberty, which has definitely been eroded from us for decades, and has no place in this forum. You say you are Libertarian, but you do not act as one. Conspiracy theories are just that. Everyone has the right to form a theory if they want and you can give concrete evidence, if you have it, to disprove it, if you do not, leave it be. Because it is a theory, anyone can believe it or disbelieve it, their choice. There are physicists who believe that electrons are a part of many different dimensions (sounds like a science fiction movie), but if enough physicist believe the theory, they study and calculate to try to prove or disprove it, but they do not slam others for their belief or disbelief, but have mature debate. You guys do not do mature debates but come off as though you are telling those that believe these theories, they are nuts. STOP!! If you truly are Libertarians as you say, you will respect the right of others to have their own opinion, if not, you are not truly Libertarian.

This is the frontlines of the fight of Liberty

The battle is over what is lawful interactions of courts and law enforcement with the People at its very roots.

Anyone who does not understand the implications of the revolution moving directly into the courts with sound congruent law instead of politics is not paying attention. Politics doesn't matter if the application of law is sound and the protections of law are known and upheld in every instance we deal with "government". If we understand the law as inherently deeper and supreme in its authority over government itself than we can ensure precedent is shaped consciously and ensure the bounded duties of those who make up the courts.

Once you fully understand the roots of this issue in Law then you will see it is really the only battle there is. The enemy has sucked the People's attention into the nation of men called politics. If we understand and protect the law so the law can protect us then we once again be a nation of laws.

You have just stepped onto the front lines of the battle for liberty and didn't know it.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

for me it's about truth

we are not the flat Earth society. If you want to be a dimwit, go ahead. But don't expect us to not call you out on it!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

is Truth subject to perspective?


For all their blather, John and Jesse are statists.

They don't hate the state, they hate not being in control of it. Oh no, my precious.

Free includes debt-free!

like this?