UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

The UK Court of Appeal has just released a decision with a clear Freeman-on-the-Land component:
  • J (Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1685: [2013] EWCA Civ 1685
However, Lady Justice Black’s decision only indirectly comments on the implications of the Appellant’s unusual argument at the lower courts. Thus, this is less useful to understand the British appellate court’s perspective on Freeman-type concepts, than to document that these ideas are showing up in English courts and are, in general, invalid.

The matter is a grim one – a mother, “M”, seeks custody of her now 11 year old son, “K”. K has been with a foster home for approaching two years. K was seized by child protection services.

M is an alcoholic and abuses prescription drugs. She did not shield her child from those activities – for example at age six K called emergency services when his mother passed out as a consequence of substance abuse. M’s conduct had its ups and downs. So did K's. A critical and dramatic incident is recorded at para. 18, where M left K with a babysitter, climbed up a cliff with a bottle of brandy and what were arguably two suicide notes. She drank, self-injured, then telephoned K. During their telephone call M dropped the phone, and fell off the cliff, causing serious head injury.

K was placed in foster care. Around this point M hooked up with IM, who appears to have been the source of her Freemanish concepts and arguments. These are described in passing by Lady Black:
2. M would have been entitled to public funding for legal representation but, after a period when she was represented, she began to act in person and she chose to represent herself before Judge Bromilow at the final hearing, assisted by IM who was her fiancé at the time. IM was still assisting her when McFarlane LJ considered the matter on 22 October 2013. However, by the time of the appeal hearing before us, M had parted company with him and was assisted by two new McKenzie friends. Her approach orally was very different from that which had been evident from the plentiful papers which she had provided for the appeal.

3. The paperwork reflected that, as had also been the case in front of Judge Bromilow, M and IM considered that they were claiming to proceed under "Common Law Jurisdiction and Authority". They considered that this affected the proceedings in a number of ways. For example, in M's skeleton argument for the appeal she said, speaking of the proceedings at first instance, that:
"we established Common Law Jurisdiction prior to the hearing and Mr Bromilow confirmed he was on his Oath before the hearing began. Therefore, as a Court de Jure was in effect, no consent means Mr Bromilow had no authority"
Another feature was that M treated the name by which she would normally be known as her "legal fiction" and insisted that she be addressed by a rather differently formulated version of it. Furthermore, she and IM did not consider they were bound by orders to which they did not consent.

4. The local authority submitted to us that M's then adherence to this notion of Common Law Jurisdiction and Authority had contributed to the case being challenging to manage. I have no difficulty in accepting that submission. The judge described the material sent to the court by M by way of evidence as "voluminous" (§19 of the judgment) and that description is corroborated by the bundles supplied to us, containing both the original material that formed part of the care proceedings and new material generated for the appeal.
M also applied to have the hearing judge recuse himself: para. 24. It appears M and IM tried to ‘drum up support’, because an injunction was issued to prevent M and IM from publicizing the situation with K: para. 23.

As noted by the Court, M abandoned this approach on appeal, and acknowledged her prior litigation strategy was an error:
5. M freely acknowledged to us that she had been under IM's influence and had developed misguided beliefs. She put this down to her vulnerability following an accident she had had, about which I shall say something later. She accepted that her reference to "Common Law" was wholly inappropriate and she said she could understand why objection had been taken to IM. She made a prepared oral submission in support of her appeal which was in a distinctly different tone from that adopted in her written submissions and in which her former beliefs played no part. She also abandoned some of her grounds of appeal. This was sensible given that they could not have succeeded. The effect of M's new constructive approach was to enable us to concentrate on the issues that required determination.
[Emphasis added.]

So it seems that Lady Black has generally but indirectly rejected the following common Freeman / OPCA concepts in para. 3:
  • 1. there is a separate "common law" jurisdiction, and that litigation in that jurisdiction excludes court action;

    2. state action is only authorized where a person consents to that action; and

    3. that state action can only be directed to a 'strawman'-type "legal fiction".
The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant evidence, which is whether the original custody order was or was not appropriate. M’s current state was simply not relevant on appeal. The evidence sadly disclosed that M was having many serious issues, and K’s continued care by his mother put him at risk. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

A nasty business. It is clear from the judgment that M was and very likely remains a troubled person. Also obvious is the care she has for her child. M obtained no benefit from Freeman-on-the-Land litigation strategies, and it seems she knows that.

Unfortunately there is an increasing incidence of family law disputes in Commonwealth jurisdictions where desperate parents resort to these kinds of tactics. Child seizure appears to be a particular flashpoint. Reframing these confrontations in a Freeman context simply does not help, and instead only appears to further escalate the conflict between parents and state actors.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by grixit »

She cares for her child but her submissions make no reference to any progress in cleaning up her act. There is no list of steps taken, such as joining AA, seeing a therapist, getting positive reviews from a visiting social worker. Without any of that, her filings are worthless.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am
Location: Wherever my truck goes.

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by JamesVincent »

It was an appeal of a lower court's decision, yes? Her current state of affairs would not have mattered. Unless she had proved that the lower court had erred in it's decision then there was no grounds to overturn. Even if she had been able to prove that her court appearance had been tainted by those beliefs the best she could have gotten would have been an order for retrial. Unless UK law is drastically different from US.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire

Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

JamesVincent wrote:It was an appeal of a lower court's decision, yes? Her current state of affairs would not have mattered. Unless she had proved that the lower court had erred in it's decision then there was no grounds to overturn. Even if she had been able to prove that her court appearance had been tainted by those beliefs the best she could have gotten would have been an order for retrial. Unless UK law is drastically different from US.
That is exactly correct, and indeed was an aspect of the decision. M had tried to introduce evidence she had changed her ways, and the judgment explicitly concludes that is irrelevant.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
gtm
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by gtm »

This is a truly pathetic case and all to familiar as I've practiced in the Family Courts & have had extensive experience with this type of litigation.

Her position was pretty hopeless despite the malign influence of 'IM'. In real terms I doubt whether he caused much damage to her case. That being said if I'd been representing her I would have encouraged her to do the things necessary to improve her chances - ie clean up her act, engage with social services & other professionals. I expect this type of advice wasn't forthcoming from 'IM'.

This is an unusual judgement insofar as it's a rare instance of English & Welsh senior judiciary commenting on FMOTL 'jurisprudence'. No Justice Rooke for us (yet)!
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by notorial dissent »

One of the seeming constants in Freeman/sovrun custody/marital cases is that they are all convinced that they have done nothing wrong, that their children/spouse is their property, and that de ebil oppressive gubmint is interfering in their natural rights.

You are quite right in that M more than likely did not present, show, or prove anything at the hearing that she had made any attempts at all at reforming herself or her behavior, see comment above, and that social services and the court were still seeing no indication that M was going to do anything to change her past patterns of behavior. And while she may very well really deeply "love" K, she is still every bit as much a health hazard and threat to his general welfare as she was when K was originally taken. Truly an unfortunate situation, but it would not appear that anything has markedly changed, or is likely too as long as she hangs on to her current belief set.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

gtm wrote:This is a truly pathetic case and all to familiar as I've practiced in the Family Courts & have had extensive experience with this type of litigation. ...
You tread a hard road, gtm! Family law is a difficult practice...

I have a couple questions - do you have any sense of how the Freeman-on-the-Land movement is evolving in the UK? It seems to me thus far it is largely oriented to debt elimination, rather than other objectives. Does that perception seem correct? Interestingly in Canada OPCA strategies seems more and more to either be employed as a defence in criminal litigation or in family law disputes, particularly ones that involve child custody. (And take that as an informed but anecdote-based comment - I just don't have the stats and I don't think anyone does.)

Any thoughts on whether in the UK the incidence of this kind of litigation strategy is on the rise? Are the courts now more aware and ready to respond?

Any observations would be very welcome.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
gtm
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by gtm »

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:
gtm wrote:This is a truly pathetic case and all to familiar as I've practiced in the Family Courts & have had extensive experience with this type of litigation. ...
You tread a hard road, gtm! Family law is a difficult practice...

I have a couple questions - do you have any sense of how the Freeman-on-the-Land movement is evolving in the UK? It seems to me thus far it is largely oriented to debt elimination, rather than other objectives. Does that perception seem correct? Interestingly in Canada OPCA strategies seems more and more to either be employed as a defence in criminal litigation or in family law disputes, particularly ones that involve child custody. (And take that as an informed but anecdote-based comment - I just don't have the stats and I don't think anyone does.)

Any thoughts on whether in the UK the incidence of this kind of litigation strategy is on the rise? Are the courts now more aware and ready to respond?

Any observations would be very welcome.

SMS Möwe
I'd say FMOTL is declining in popularity here in the UK. The main online meeting point for them was the dedicated section of the David Icke Forum which is moribund these days. The 'scene' was never as developed as in Canada or the US and it was always connected with the wider 'alternative' scene. In other words if you're interested in the healing power of crystals and the royal family being reptiles then you're more likely to happen upon FMOTL ideas. The high water point for the movement was between 2008 & 2011 which tallies with the worst of the recession.

I'd agree that FMOTL theory is usually deployed in consumer debt litigation & disputes over council tax. There are the usual Youtube clips of British freeman locking horns with the police over minor road traffic matters but I've not heard of of a 'big time' FMOTL trial in the criminal courts.

You'll be glad to hear we do / did have Gurus. There is the idiotic John Harris who eventually rejected FMOTL & now calls himself 'Sion' and thinks he will be the next King of England. He was a big cheese in the alternative scene and gave talks at all sorts of conferences / happenings. Harris has ties with another guru called Ray St Clair.

St Clair (real name Gary Beaver) is a petty conman who has been involved with direct marketing scams and the sale of phony titles of nobility. Google him.

There's a foul mouthed transvestite Guru called Veronica Chapman. Her forum is now nearly defunct.

Roger Hayes is another guru of sorts who is is chairman of an odd little outfit called the British Constitutional Group. He doesn't describe himself as FMOTL but relies on a rather hopeful interpretation of Magna Carta to argue that he shouldn't pay Council Tax. His major claim to fame is that his people attempted to arrest a Judge in the spring of 2011. Needless to say this resulted in a number of them being imprisoned.
rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: UK: M and K - mom catches on, but sadly too late

Post by rumpelstilzchen »

gtm wrote:
Roger Hayes is another guru of sorts who is is chairman of an odd little outfit called the British Constitutional Group. He doesn't describe himself as FMOTL but relies on a rather hopeful interpretation of Magna Carta to argue that he shouldn't pay Council Tax. His major claim to fame is that his people attempted to arrest a Judge in the spring of 2011. Needless to say this resulted in a number of them being imprisoned.
And of course we should not forget that Roger Hayes went to prison for refusing to pay council tax.
He was declared bankrupt in 2011 and his status shows as "Discharge suspended indefinitely"
Another FOTL win!
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.