Saturday, 23 June 2012

Freeman on the Land: the Underlying Truth - Part One


I'm going to start this post (which will be a series of posts) with a disclaimer - the following is based on my personal experience in the jurisdiction of Jersey and may not be applicable to other jurisdictions particularly those which are not common law jurisdictions. This is not legal advice which in any case would only be relevant if given with regard to the specific circumstances of the situation which gave rise to your need for advice, but it is my understanding of what the law actually means and I hope it is applicable generally.

Jersey does follow the demands of justice to a great extent, but just as you are not beyond using the system to your advantage, neither are they and they have a lot more practise than you do, so let's start to balance the scales a little. If the Courts were completely corrupt then it would not matter what you said, you would be guilty anyway.

Myth One - I am not a person, I am a flesh and blood man

This is one of those strange phrases which appears quite frequently over the internet, now I have never heard one of the freeman 'gurus' use it and I expect that it is something that has been planted to create confusion in the minds of people who are using the internet to research. It is so nearly correct, but if you ever stated it in a Court of Law then they would simply look at you blankly, they will not tell you that you are wrong but they will await a fuller explanation to make sure you know what you are saying.

There is a truth beneath it though and that is Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus which roughly translates as a person is a man with reference to a particular status.


Every statute is of limited applicability in that it will only apply under specific conditions, for example road traffic statutes will only apply to you when you are either driving in a vehicle, a passenger in a vehicle or in very limited circumstances a pedestrian on a road. Thus when you are none of those things, when that is not your status, you are not a person within the terms of that statute.

This means that the statute cannot be applied to you, nor can any powers granted to the authorities under that statute be used against you. Thus the first task of the authorities is to establish your status, which you are under no compulsion to assist with.

Its Applicability to Parking Tickets in Jersey - an example

Parking tickets are generally issued to cars which have no occupant, no record is taken of whom was the 'driver'* who parked the car and no record is taken of whom was the 'driver'* who subsequently removed the car. Thus often at the time of the offence as recorded on the ticket there was no 'driver'* as to hold that particular status you must be 'in effective control of the speed and direction of the vehicle' (*there are many different legal definitions of 'driver' and which one applies varies according to usage, however under the Road Traffic Statutes, this is the one which applies).

The Court assumes that the 'driver' is the 'registered keeper', however this does not remove the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a particular man was the driver and therefore is a person as defined in the statute and is thus subject to the statute and thus liable to pay the penalty set forth. However, you have the right to remain silent except under oath.

The effect on the pre-trial process

Did you ever wonder why the parking tickets are worded the way they are and why the authorities cannot summons you to the Magistrate's Court, (although they can issue a document which looks like a summons), the reason is that they have not yet established you as the driver and you therefore are not yet a 'person' and thus the statute does not apply to you. Any powers granted to the authorities to compel you to attend are thus also not yet available to them.

Elements of Proof

Any case against you will require a number of elements of proof, this is whether criminal or civil. The first element of proof in any case must be that you hold the status described in the law or that you are the person named in the pleading. If this cannot be proven then the case will fall before the first hurdle.

The prosecution must indeed prove that you are a person, but unless you understand what that actually means you will merely be displaying your ignorance of the law if you use Myth One.

5 comments:

  1. "If the Courts were completely corrupt then it would not matter what you said, you would be guilty anyway."


    Have you forgotten about the term (plausible deniability?).
    They have to let 3% or 4% off per year, simply to show the public that they are not totally corrupt.
    And out of that 4%, they are probably extremely selective!!!
    Jesus....Darius, are the Crown writing these posts now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'but just as you are not beyond using the system to your advantage, neither are they and they have a lot more practise than you do'

    I believe that about sums it up Ian.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are actually very few people 'found' guilty, I believe if you look through the records the vast majority 'plead' guilty, including many whom I know without doubt are 'not guilty'.

    The greatest weakness in Jersey is the legal aid system which is basically where your lawyer says, 'Plead guilty or you'll face a long sentence, unless you pay me lots of money of course'.

    This series is not designed to allow guilty people to 'get off', there are some people who should not be free, but to encourage innocent people to stand their ground, represent themselves if necessary, by unravelling some of the mystery of the legal process.

    An innocent man never pleads guilty, but I know just how hard it is to stand your ground and what torture (and yes I mean torture) you have to go through.

    At the end of the day, unfashionable as it may be, I do believe that we will be judged by a being that knows the whole truth.

    Just because others may be willing to act immorally, that does not mean I will use this as a justification for sinking to their level and committing immoral acts myself.

    This is a campaign of Satyagraha, not war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What time are you in court tomorrow for your appeal Darius?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The appeal was upheld, hearing was at 10am, I was out of Court by 10.15am. A post will follow.

    ReplyDelete