Freeman On The Land
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
This overlaps to a considerable extent with the Tax Protestor movement; however, an adherent of FOTL considers himself not only exempt from taxation, but also from other due debts such as paying his phone bill or his mortgage.
[edit] Tenets of FOTL
The tenets of the Freeman On The Land movement are as follows (varying somewhat from loon to loon):
- You, as a "natural person" or "flesh-and-blood person" are distinct from the entity with exactly the same name that is referred to on any legal document that you'd like to ignore, e.g. a tax demand, a summons, a bill, or whatever. The person referred to in such documents is a "fictitious corporation", a "nom de guerre" or "your strawman", and is an entity entirely distinct from you.
- This is especially the case if the document gives your name in capital letters, as is common practice in many legal documents: "JOHN SMITH" is your "strawman"; you are "John Smith", or "John of the family Smith". However, it's still true even if the person drawing up the document is not considerate enough to spell your name in capitals.
- Whenever the word "person" appears in a law that you don't want to apply to you, it does not refer to people in any way. Such laws do not apply to you as a "natural person" but only to your corporate "strawman".
- There are two types of law, "common law", consisting of the laws that you'd like to apply to you; and "admiralty law", also known as "maritime law", consisting of the laws that you don't want to apply to you. Such laws only apply to your strawman. For example, any law which says that you owe anyone any money (for example to pay your phone bill or your taxes or your credit card debt or your parking tickets) actually applies to your strawman and not to you at all. In America, the assertion that the courts are applying Admiralty Law is usually "proved" by reference to the fact that American courthouse flags often bear a decorative gold fringe; in other countries it is merely taken as an article of faith.
- It is possible to disassociate yourself (i.e. "John Smith", your "flesh-and-blood-person") from "JOHN SMITH", your strawman, by reciting an appropriate piece of legal mumbo-jumbo. This makes you not responsible for any debts owed by your strawman.
- The fact that judges invariably reject such frivolous legal theories as the nonsense they are is because they're part of an evil conspiracy to deprive you of your rights, and not because they know the law better than you do.
[edit] Why FOTL is wrong
This section of the article may seem almost superfluous. Assuming that you are of sound mind, it should be obvious to you that FOTL is nonsense. However, there are people who believe in it, proving, if further proof was necessary, that there is no opinion so dumb that you can't find someone who'll maintain it.
We shall therefore review some of the more blatant mistakes in this farrago of nonsense.
[edit] You and your strawman
As we have seen, the central tenet of FOTL is the existence of two separate legal entities, you and your strawman, who just happen to have the same name. This is, of course, untrue: and there is not much more to say about it, because this position is not supported by argument, but accepted as an article of faith.
Furthermore, even if you were two distinct legal entities, it is not at all clear that the other you --- your strawman --- would be the version of you liable for the debts that you incur. When, for example, you receive an electricity bill, it is you, in your capacity as a "flesh-and-blood person" who has been turning the lights on with your flesh-and-blood fingers. When you get a speeding ticket, it is you who has had your flesh-and-blood foot applied too heavily to the accelerator. When you are required to pay off the debt on your credit card, it is you, and not some fictitious corporate entity, who has been spending the money and enjoying the use of the goods which you purchased with it.
[edit] Capital letters
One common FOTL belief is that any time your name is spelled in capital letters, as is common in legal documents, this refers to your strawman and not to you. This argument is so patently nutty that in one case when a defendant made it part of his plea the judge ordered a psychiatric examination to ensure that he was fit to stand trial. (It was established that the man was not actually insane, just dumber than a sack of hammers.)
This argument is invariably rejected by the courts. For example, in United States v. Wright, the judge decided as follows:
- Wright brings what he has labeled a ‘motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s lack of standing and misjoinder of parties.’ First, he contends that since the amended complaint states that this action is brought against ‘FLOYD A. WRIGHT’ and his name is ‘Floyd A. Wright’, he is not the proper defendant. ... These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.
The argument has been described by various judges as "frivolous", "baseless", and "specious"; numerous examples of legal slapdowns may be found here.
We should also note that there is a legal doctrine known as idem sonans (Latin for "sounds the same") by which a document is held to be valid even if it outright mis-spells your name, so long as the mis-spelling and your actual name are homophones. So if your name is "John Smith", then a document referring to you as "Jon Smith" is held to be valid: and a fortiori so is a document referring to you as "JOHN SMITH".
[edit] People aren't people
One of the more peculiar FOTL beliefs is the notion that the term "person", in legal usage, does not in fact refer to people. So, for example, the notorious creationist tax-dodger Kent Hovind, when explaining why he thought he shouldn't pay his taxes, stated:
- Declarant is not nor has ever claimed to be a “person” as that term is construed in the statutes.
The basis of this delusion seems to be that, in law, the term "person" includes corporate entities. But of course it does not exclude actual people. As defined in U.S. law:
- “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe. [1]
[edit] Common Law, Statutory Law, And Admiralty Law
FOTLers make a peculiar distinction between common law (the laws they like) and admiralty law (the laws they don't like).
Their use of these terms is muddled and inaccurate. The term common law properly refers to the principle that a decision made by a judge as to what the law means is binding on other judges and can only be overturned by a higher court: for example, the decision in Roe v. Wade that abortion is an activity protected by the Constitution is a classic instance of judge-made law. The principle of common law is followed (as a general rule) in those countries which derive their legal system from the English legal system: such countries are known as "common law countries".
"Freemen", however, usually assume that "common law" includes a few basic principles which they approve of, such as doing no harm and not stealing (they do not consider bilking their creditors as doing them harm or stealing, and their self-righteousness on this subject has to be seen to be believed.)
Common law is in contrast to statutory law, i.e. those laws passed by a legislative body such as the U.S. Congress or the British Parliament. Some FOTLers claim that all statutory law should be considered commercial law, and cannot apply to them without their consent or a contract by which they agree to be bound by it; others hold that they can be free of statutory law if only they can separate themselves from their "strawman", to whom it exclusively applies.
In America in particular FOTLers often refer to statutory law as "admiralty law". Admiralty law is simply the law governing ships at sea, and includes elements of both common law and statutory law. Such FOTLers claim that any laws they don't like are "admiralty law", that it doesn't apply to them because they're not ships, and that only common law applies to a "natural person". They are correct in thinking that they are not ships; the rest of their argument is worthless.
We should note that since courts do in fact apply statutory law to natural persons, with or without their consent, it is therefore common law that statutory law is law and applies to "flesh-and-blood people" whether or not they consent. The "Freemen" who cry up the supremacy of common law and the impotence of statutory law seem oblivious to this point.
[edit] Gold fringe
As we have noted, FOTLers will often attempt to prove that all courts are (secretly) admiralty courts or military courts by reference to the fact that flags displayed in courthouses are frequently embellished with gold fringe.
This fringe is of course purely decorative and has no legal significance whatsoever. The FOLTer argument has been variously described by judges as "totally frivolous", "without merit", "sanctionable", "malicious" and "intended to harass"[2]. As the judge aptly remarked in the case of McCann v. Greenway:
- Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
[edit] Magic words
In the end, the point of FOTL is to get out of paying one's debts. FOTLer believe that they can do this by reciting such pseudolegal mumbo-jumbo as "non-statutory abatement", "presentments without dishonor", "accepted for value", "refusal for fraud without dishonor", "overstand" and the mystic phrase "Freeman On The Land" from which their movement takes its name. This never works: indeed, such phrases are either completely legally meaningless, or meaningless in the context in which FOTLers apply them. As the judge commented in Fisher v. Niemiec:
- "All of the plaintiff's responsive filings with the court are captioned 'Notice of Refusal' or 'Refusal for Fraud'. These filings are without legal significance and will not be considered by the court in ruling on any matters before it."
How likely is it, after all, that the people who drew up, for example, the tax laws, should have carefully provided a loophole such that anyone who prefers not to pay their taxes could get out of it just by shouting: "Abracadabra! Presto no taxo!"
An extensive example of the sort of magical formulae in which FOTLers put their trust can be found here.
[edit] The conspiracy of Evil Judges
Because FOTL arguments are always rejected, not to mention ridiculed, by any judge who can be bothered to notice them, a FOTL will typically reduce his cognitive dissonance by supposing that he is right about the law, that the judge knows that he's right about the law, but that all judges are part of an evil conspiracy to deprive him of his legal rights.
This, of course, flies in the face of the principle of common law as explained above. Once the first judge told the first FOTLer that (for example) spelling someone's name in capital letters has no legal significance, then this was true simply by virtue of a judge having decided it.
In this respect, FOTLers are even nuttier than other similar cultists such as creationists and Holocaust deniers. For, after all, scientists and historians simply discover the facts in their respective fields, and it is possible to imagine them being wrong. But judges do not merely discover the state of the law --- they determine it. The only way a judge can be wrong about the meaning of the law is if a higher court explicitly says so.
[edit] Advice on arguing with FOTLers
Don't.
Being fined, or imprisoned, or having his house or car repossessed, or the humiliation of being ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation, has no effect on a FOTLer's unshakable sense of his own rightness. Nor does the obvious fact that it is just and equitable for him to pay his debts and wrong for him to try to bilk his creditors.
It is hardly likely, then, that mere exposure to facts will do anything to help him. We therefore recommend that when you hear someone talking about gold fringe and Admiralty Law you nod, smile, and back away slowly.
