Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[Hercule Parrot]

Alleging that "person" doesn't include "human being" is a common pseudo-legal argument. It's based on the definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act, which says that it includes "a body of persons corporate or unincorporate". Pseuodlawyers read that to mean that rather than just including bodies, the definition excludes everyone else.

Her application seemed inherently self-defeating. Habeas Corpus only applies to persons. If she perceives her daughter as material property, a different process would be required?

It's a sad situation. Her Universal Law Community Trust pals are urging her ever deeper into disaster. Won't be surprised if they take a mob to dad's home and try to seize the child. It's happened before, and ended predictably.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... r-21276943

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north- ... g-21719564

[Hercule Parrot]

There's a real scary cult vibe about the fact that several people appear to call themselves 'Minister Emoven' followed by a number.

Minister Emoven's cousin perhaps...

38. Minister Emerven did not recognise the Court's authority or jurisdiction and at one point told me that he was placing me under arrest pursuant to the "universal law". He was accompanied by others who sat in the public gallery. All initially remained standing as an act of defiance to the court, but later sat when I made clear that they would otherwise be removed. Minister Emerven did not make any substantive submissions.


https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/1962.html

[aesmith]

This one popped up on Facebook in "The Sovereign Fraternity - Private Group". The old chestnut of deregistering your car, travelling not driving, don't need tax and insurance etc etc. What tickled me was the idea of informing the police. Do you give your address as well, and let them know where the car's normally parked?

Abraham Cadavra
The car will still have number plates on so they must be returned to DVLA and you can use form V888 to enquire about the manufacturer's statement of origin. Without this you do not own the car. I would also inform the local police and any neighbouring police boroughs you enter regularly with a notice of your intentions giving them a time limit to respond etc. Good luck. Keep us posted how you get on.

[TheRambler]

This one popped up on Facebook in "The Sovereign Fraternity - Private Group". The old chestnut of deregistering your car, travelling not driving, don't need tax and insurance etc etc……..

Abraham Cadavra
…………………………Keep us posted how you get on.

Please, please do!

TheRambler

[longdog]

The car will still have number plates on so they must be returned to DVLA

Do they think numberplates belong to DVLA?

[mufc1959]

I couldn't see a separate thread for Debt Ninjas, so I'll leave this here. It'll be interesting to see how he'll react when all the unpaid CCJs start being taken out of his 'hard-earned salary'. In a perfect world, he'd be charged with theft, but that's not likely to happen. Instead, it'll grind on through the civil courts for a few years.

[SpearGrass]

Debt Ninjas the movie
It begins with Get Out of Debt Free shambling up from the grave and lurching across the graveyard clutching the three letters it was buried with.

[rosy]

Radio France had a short report on SovCits (citoyens souverains) last week: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/ ... 24-3766475 and the video on X has had millions of views (and there's a remix on Spotify).

Not a complete translation as I typed it up while listening so didn't put in the editorialising of the presenter, but the gist is there:

A night-time patrol in the North stopped a couple in their fifties and told them to show their papers and submit to having their vehicle checked [normal in France] but the couple refused, saying they don't contract.

"I'm no longer part of the company of the French Republic... France is a private company which exploits its workers.." the man stated with confidence. His theory is based on the fact that the French President has a Siret number [like a company number] which is mandatory for anyone who issues invoices.

These people call themselves sovereign citizens and consider themselves to be above - even outside - the law. Just by declaring themselves sovcits they don't pay taxes or bills; those are for those who contract with the state. They drive carrying a "freedom card" which says in tiny print that they aren't employees of the state. In fact, they have seceded from society.

In France this movement has tens of thousands of members. It's marginal, but worrying because in the USA where this idea originated, these sovcits have killed six police officers. The FBI has classed them as domestic terrorists.

In Germany a couple of years ago, a coup d'état instigated by the "Reischbürger" - Citizens of the Reich - was foiled, avoiding a possible disaster.

However the main victims of this movement remain the people who adopt this conspiracy theory. People who end up isolated - and behind bars. The man stopped by the police has been summoned to court and faces up to five years in prison.

[John Uskglass]

From minor nuisance to attempted bio-terrorism, this one appears to have gone well down the rabbit hole.

A former company director has been convicted of a terror offence after he sent a package of his wife's cooking labelled 'biohazard' to debt collectors.

Andrew Cowell, 55, sparked a major security alert after he sent a parcel to the Leicestershire-based enforcement agency Rundles and Company Ltd with plastic bags featuring the word 'biohazard'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... azard.html

While there's nothing overtly FMOTL in the report, a keen eye will note that:

When Cowell initially faced court in November 2022 he refused to enter the dock to identify himself and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

His 'What Do They Know' page contains a number of FMOTL/Council Tax refuser tropes.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/andrew_cowell

[SpearGrass]

A case with a momentary glance at a freeman theory: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... saintclair. Most of the case is an unremarkable appeal against conviction and sentence by two industrial-strength benefit fraudsters (the amount taken by the two amounted to over £600,000). However one of Ms Saintclair's grounds for appeal was that she wasn't allowed an interpreter, which was necessary as she didn't speak 'legalease' [sic].

[Pottapaug1938]

A case with a momentary glance at a freeman theory: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... saintclair. Most of the case is an unremarkable appeal against conviction and sentence by two industrial-strength benefit fraudsters (the amount taken by the two amounted to over £600,000). However one of Ms Saintclair's grounds for appeal was that she wasn't allowed an interpreter, which was necessary as she didn't speak 'legalease' [sic].

These days, being retired and with my wife having passed away 6 months ago, I like to watch videos showing freemen/sovcits/Moorish noncitizens/American state nationals getting their legal clocks cleaned by cops and courts, I am increassingly hearing the idjits complain that "everything is legalese, and I can't understand it." Since these people love to get cops angry with them (despite which almost all of them keep their cool and courtesy) and appear pro se (can't contract with any government, y'know), it never ends well.

The schadenfreude is strong....

[mufc1959]

In a comprehensive and sensible decision, the HIgh Court has put the kibosh on the FOTL argument that securitisation of a mortgage means that the borrower is entitled to compensation because of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Cestui Qui Vie acts, etc. One of the claimants in this case, Stamp, appears to have been the director of a CMC which drove these complaints, and the court is, rightly, enquiring into the link between hundreds of almost identical claims where the claimants appear to be litigants in person. Stamp is now "beyond the seas" (a lovely legal phrase), which presumably means he's done a runner to Spain to escape any comeback from the punters he's duped into thinking they'll get a free house.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/1092.html

[John Uskglass]

What's surprising about that case is that one of the claimants, Mr Le Clere, had paid off the mortgage!

Mr Le Clere applied for a mortgage with BoS, in early 2000 and used the agreed loan of £195,000 in relation to his ownership of a property in Corby. The agreed term was 20 years but in the event the mortgage was redeemed in 2009, some 14 years ago.

And still reckoned he was in line for a big pay off.

He values this loss at around £1.1m, this being the value of 35 Gretton Road, at an unknown time, plus interest at 8%.

I can understand how someone in arrears and facing repossession would be tempted to grasp at the straws offered by the likes of Mr Stamp, but the combination of stupidity and greed exhibited there is beyond that.

[Albert Haddock]

Here's one, recently added to BAILII, that addresses the "not a person" claim:

Adam (Formally Known as Michael Merrill) v Cheshire East Council [2024] EWCA Civ 536

The only reference to "person" in the section relates to a person whose identity is unknown. However even if one approaches the injunction on the basis that in this case the injunction was made against a "person". The appellant's argument that he is not a person is unsustainable.
The Court of Appeal has recently considered a similar argument in relation to The Children Act 1989 in Re AB (A Child) (Habeas Corpus) [2024] EWCA Civ 105. The argument run in that case, and again by the appellant in this appeal, is that as The Interpretation Act 1978 Schedule 1 says that: "'person' includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate." he, not being a body corporate or unincorporate, is not a person for the purposes of the Planning Regulations.
At paragraph [30], I said as follows that:
"The reference in the Interpretation Act to 'person' including "a body of persons corporate or unincorporate" is not intended to limit the ordinary meaning of the word by excluding human beings, but rather to include in the definition a class, namely "a body of persons corporate or unincorporate" who on the ordinary meaning of the word, would not otherwise be within the class."
I went on to give as an example a club which has no separate legal existence apart from the members from which it is composed but does, for the purposes of the definitions in The Interpretation Acts, constitute a person. This approach was endorsed by Lewison LJ at paragraph [56] who said that on the face of it the definition found in Schedule 1 of The Interpretation Act "simply extends the ordinary meaning of a 'person' (i.e. a human being) to bodies of persons. Some of those bodies of persons will not take human form at all (for example a limited company). Others might do (for example a partnership)."
This Court is bound by Re AB even if common sense alone, as was recognised by the judge, makes it abundantly clear that the appellant is a person for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act.