The Last Bastille: critical commentary on Sovran/Freemen

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I came across a blog a few days ago that I thought was quite interesting – “The Last Bastille” (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/). It’s run by three individuals who’s political and economic perspective is probably best described as radical. And, interestingly, they take an extremely dim view of the Sovereign/Freeman world, and do a pretty nice job shredding its concepts:

• Only on Paper: The Pathetic Story of Commerical Redemption, Freemen-on-the-Land, Sovereign Citizens, Lawful Rebellion, & Community Immunity (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... -immunity/)
  
  Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag? (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... re-schwag/)
  
  What Does Accepted for Value Mean? (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... alue-mean/)
  
  Good to be King? [a Sovereign book review] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... o-be-king/)
  
  The Global Sovereign’s Handbook [a Sovereign book review] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... -handbook/)
  
  Standing Under Freedom [a Sovereign book review] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... r-freedom/)
  
  Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception [review of a Robert Menard Freeman text] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... deception/)
  
  Freedom is More Than Just a 7-Letter Word [review of a Veronica Chapman Freeman text] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... tter-word/)
  
  How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known to Man [review of Mary Elizabeth Croft’s foundational Freeman book] (http://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/20 ... wn-to-man/)

It’s interesting to see this kind of on-the-point analysis from the ‘other side of the hill’. I also very much like their breakdown in the first linked article of the Freeman/Sovereign world into five general concept groups.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I've worked my way through the articles and I agree that the writer, while definitely not a pro-capitalist type (little hints like the phrase "the corporate whore media") does a very good job of analyzing the various Freeman arguments. A more literate style than most too.

He seems to focus on Menard, and not favourably. Not kind to Mary Elizabeth Croft either. It is unusual to get a freeman or fellow traveler who can intelligently analyze arguments rather than just spout them out as fact. The author makes one point over and over; that almost all of the Freeman arguments rely on unsupported bald statements rather than evidence. Same thing I've seen in court where they ramble on and on about secret trusts, natural men vs. persons, and unilateral contracts without providing any evidentiary base to support their pleadings. They seem to think that just telling the judge that they have a secret government trust for $100,000,000 is evidence enough to get the court to force the government to cough up.

[morrand]

They seem to think that just telling the judge that they have a secret government trust for $100,000,000 is evidence enough to get the court to force the government to cough up.

I think that puts it accurately enough. Another aspect to the idea seems to be that, if you put it in an affidavit, that's evidence enough, and then the other side needs to disprove whatever you've said. One minor example from the Anzaldi case, just because I have it to hand:

AS TO COUNT 2: On November 18th, 2011, an unknown, undocumented terrorist kidnapped me from my home with an assault rifle pointed directly at me that did not provide me with a Fourth Amendment Arrest Warrant. I was then handcuffed, taken to an FBI Center, Finger printed, Photographed and DNA stolen from me without my consent. This is Abuse of Power, Conspiracy, [etc.], and Dishonor in commerce, etc. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.

And so, of course, because she believes there is no evidence to the contrary, all of this must be absolutely and indisputably true, and the fact that the government can't or won't disprove it means she wins, automatically.

[notorial dissent]

Most if not all of that goes back to the commercialists and the truth of an unrebutted affidavit nonsense that they claim will free them from any charges. Plain nonsense, but a holy mantra to much of the sovrun community.

[Quixote]

In part, it comes from the Sovrun notion that every judge in the country is in on the secret trust accounts. All the Sovrun has to do is mention the secret accounts. That let's the judge know that the Sovrun knows his rights and that the jig is up. Of course, <sarcasm>sometimes</sarcasm> that doesn't work because the Sovrun didn't use the right words, forgot the postage stamps on the corners, etc., revealing to the judge that he was not a true Sovrun, but only a Sovrun wannabe.

[notorial dissent]

I'd settle for just plain idjit, simplifies matters.