Something always struck me as "off" about this whole freeman movement, and so I started looking into it to see what it's really about. I actually read some of their materials, watched some youtube videos of lectures by freeman-theorists, watched videos where people described their attempts to apply the theories in real legal cases, etc.
My conclusion was that there is no legal/historical/any basis for essentially any of what they're talking about, and that different freemen simply make it up as they go along, which accounts for discrepancies between different freeman-theorists. So why does this movement endure? Well, because the freeman theorists use elaborate intelligent-sounding language which confuses people (ironic considering that this is what they accuse the legal profession of doing) and misleads them into thinking the freeman-theorists are really onto something - but they're not. Basically, the freeman-theorists are just stringing words together meaninglessly and then claiming this constitutes some arcane legal argument which only they can understand.
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: