Freemen of the land

[Sherlock]

[**Mod Edit - Split from Sovereignshetland.com thread**]

 

Sounds like Napier got some legal advice on the QT. Referring to yourself as a sovereign being and not as the name given on your birth certificate is lawfully correct. For more info google "freeman of the land"

 

Master Boy,

 

Please elucidate. I did google this and found a page by a (thank goodness!) ex-police officer, with definite mental health problems, and others ranting about "berth certificates" (their spelling! Something to do with ...) and "Admiralty Law"!

 

(For the avoidance of doubt, while Common and Statute Law make up the Scottish legal system, Admiralty Law DOES NOT.)

 

Hardly a reliable outlet for any discussion...

 

Your humble servant.

[righter]

I have followed the "freemen" of the land around the internet....(I am not a follower though... i think its load of tosh)

 

please do cite successful cases...i haven`t found one yet,its easy to find cases of those (generally American) who have lost their houses because of a belief in the Freemen idea.

[Sherlock]

Indeed, I, too, would appreciate it if, while elucidating on the finer points of Scots Law, you might cite some successful precedents based in fact and supported by law...

[mikeyboy]

Sherlock are you referring to me when you use the name master boy?

[Sherlock]

(Bated breath...) Indeed, Master Boy, I am, in the same way in which I refer to every individual whom I address herein (i.e. either Master or Mistress).

 

However, to pre-empt any statement of how you are a master of no man or woman, because we are all Freemen of the Land, and sovereign individuals in our own right (or suchlike), it is merely an archaic and polite firm of address, which I appreciate and so have adopted in my posts.

 

The foregoing is not to say I agree with your stance, merely a presumption on my part of your likely response, if I merely replied "Yup." If incorrect, I shall, of course, offer my apologies, post haste, as any gentleman should.

 

Your humble servant.

[righter]

so...cold in here isn`t it?

 

I ,also..forsooth...am waiting fro the many "freeman" success stories.

 

I had a thoroughly enjoyable night,last night,on the freeman of the land forums...especially the success stories section....or lack of,more like it.

 

One even quoted a "statute barred debt" as a success story.....that makes me a freewoman...as i have drafted the same type of letter for people with debt

issues,it also seems strange to quote as successful,that which you are against eg statutes

 

so successful cases....

[mikeyboy]

Sherlock I picked that profile name for a reason. It's what an old mate used to call me. So if you don't mind I would rather you use that. I wouldn't take it upon myself to call you by any other name than the one you chose.

[mikeyboy]

Chaps you obviously have me confused with somebody else. I am neither a lawyer or a spokesperson for the freeman on the land idea. All I did was offer a more logical reason than the idea that Stuart had forgotten his name. Sherlock I am interested to hear some more about my stance. I didn't realise I had one. I don't know enough about the subject yet to have one. Hopefully if the discussion develops in an open and moderate manner I can learn more.

what little I do know about the subject led to me believe it only pertained to English common law. The reference to the admiralty law I think comes from the idea that commercial law owes its origins in the laws that governed trade at sea.

I have a friend who is slightly involved in the lawful revolt movement so I am going pick his brains.

[Ghostrider]

Is it just me, or is this one of the more confusing/surreal threads on Shetlink.....

 

Probably just me......

[mikeyboy]

What more confusing than the contrails over Shetland thread? Surely not.

[Sherlock]

Master Mikeyboy,

 

I shall be delighted to address you as such, and - as indicated in my last - extend my humble apologies for allowing past experience with slightly less polite and more ... manic ... individuals to colour my expectations in such a manner. Truly, sir, I am sorry for having pre-judged you (we are none of us perfect, I fear ).

 

My reason for requesting you elucidate was your quite forceful assertion that it was correct to conduct yourself in such a manner in a Scottish court - Scots and English Law are wholly distinct, each from the other. I, therefore, formed the conclusion that you had previous experience, or knowledge, of same. It would appear, once again, that I am wrong. Thankfully, my first error was committed yesterday, else this would make TWO mistakes in the

same day (and I would be carrying out discreet enquiry as to whether your surname might also begin with "M"... !).

 

This is genuine advice, sir, politefully extended, if couched in such a manner as to (dare I say it) "puncture" any situation... I know how to wire a plug (much to Watson's shock). However, just because I can do so, I would

refrain from providing another with advice as to how to work with the mains

load within a dwelling. The end results could have severe consequences, should they decide to follow my advice. Is my allegory too vague?

 

And what is this fascination these "Freemen" chappies have with Admiralty Law? Or Commercial Law? Truly bizarre and, as yet, without

basis or explanation, other than some vague ramblings about the "dock" in Court making you a ship or vessel (no, seriously, this is what was written) so

as to render you liable to Admiralty Law.

 

Words fail me ... almost.

 

The origin of the word "dock" in a Court of Law is accepted to originate from the slang adoption of the Flemish word for an enclosure used to pen an animal (Dokke or Dok = a cage or hutch). The word has it's root in the same

Proto-Germanic word, namely "Dukk", as that in old English and Danish, to

name but a few). This has been in use for several hundred years now, and

has absolutely nothing to do with the accused appearing as a commercial

entity, or property, "owned by the State" due to your "berth" certificate. I have - truly - rarely heard such tripe, even from Watson, as he regales me with the latest doings of the Dingles! Sigh

 

I would look further into the facts behind any such argument or statement propounded by the "Freemen", before making my mind up, if I were you. I

do not mean to disparage you, merely to illustrate some of the wholly ridiculous concepts and beliefs of this movement.

 

My understanding is that a certain vertically challenged actor, and his disco-dancing burger-chomping chum, believe that we are the reborn spirits of

billions of enlightened extra-terrestrials, brought to this planet 75 million years ago, before being slaughtered or sacrificed by the leader of the then

Galactic Confederacy, and that by realising this and purifying your body and mind, you may unlock incredible powers and abilities, left behind from when

you were an extra-terrestrial (I suppose everyone needs a hobby Still, it might explain his extraordinary ability to levitate in close-up shots with taller actresses!). Their sole foundation for this is the writings of a failed science fiction author, who once commented to an associate, "You know, the big bucks are in religion", or words to this effect.

 

Without citation of definitive sources for the claims made by the Freemen, I can view such statements as no more based in fact or reality, or worthy of consideration, than those of the late Ron L. In my experience, requests for such information are met with vitriol and comments such as "You are blinkered, you and all the other sheeple". Helpful, no?

 

Just because someone WANTS something to be, does not make it so. Master

Crowley attempted this with his own variant of anarchy, namely his Thelemic

Law. Look where it got him... ("Is it just me, or is it hot in here? And can you mind where you are pointing that pitchfork?!" )

 

I remain, as always,

 

Your humble servant.

[EM]

... the same way in which I refer to every individual whom I address herein (i.e. either Master or Mistress).

At my most puerile I can't help wishing I'd chosen a user name ending in the surname "Bates" just to chuckle at the resulting construction . Incidentally, despite being "well known," the Captain Pugwash aspect of that is pure myth.

[Sherlock]

Indeed, Master B... ahem ... Master EM,

 

We can thank the insightful and accurate reporting of the Guardian and the Evening Standard for this modern myth. Acting under the influence of Cut-Throat Jake, perhaps?

 

Your humble servant (me hearties!)

[mikeyboy]

Sherlock first let me humbly accept your apology no offence taken. Its just the chap who called me by that handle is no longer with us so I view it with a certain touch of nostalgia. As to my surname, well that would be telling wouldn't it.

I am sorry if my assertation was forceful I certainly didn't mean it that way and don't remember using the dreaded upper case. But I do think you can call yourself what you want and as long as you give the name in common use nothing more can be said about it. I think the speedy release of the prisoner and subsequent apology is proof of that. Admittedly if I was up in front of Napier I would think twice before going down that route.

 

As to advice I don't believe I have offered to advise anybody. I do however take your point about some of the comments that are bandied about as facts on the freeman forums. It is quite an interesting idea though and worth more research although sometimes it does smack of wishful thinking.

 

There used to be a recording on youtube showing Veronica Chapman having a case against her dismissed. But I can't find it just now.

[Sherlock]

Master Mikeyboy,

 

I would think, all things considered, that much would depend upon the tolerance and personality of the magistrate, Sheriff or other authority hearing the case. I rather suspect that Master Hill's speedy release attests to the tolerance of the incumbent Sheriff, and how seriously he comports the running of the Court. He, at least, recognises the gravity of any case brought before him, and that one should conduct oneself with dignity and respect, if partaking - in any capacity - while the Court is sitting. There are precedents for individuals being detained, upon the instruction of the Sheriff, for contempt of court. In my experience, each and every one has, thereafter, been returned to the Court in short order, having had a short, sharp spell of custody to consider how they should conduct themselves, during any hearing. I am aware of instances, in other areas, where a Sheriff has left the individual in custody overnight, so as to similarly reflect upon their behaviour. At least our own Sheriff appears somewhat more humane.

 

Your humble servant.