Sunday, 6 February 2011

We're all Urban Spacemen.

I don't exist. I know, it came as a shock to me too.

It was even more of a shock to find that you don't exist either. None of this is real, it's all just a reality game show for the dead.

That's not absolutely accurate. Leg-Iron is real. The Facebook persona, Romulus Crowe, is real. That demented psychopath who used to write for Alienskin before it shut down, Phineas Dume, is real. The one who writes the stories, H.K. Hillman, is real. Several others are real too.

The person who invented these names is not real. A court of law has proved this. The name on my birth certificate is not me - of all these personas, it's the only one that's not me. That certificate is a fiction, a legal device used to extract taxes from me as though I were a corporation rather than flesh and blood.

I've followed Captain Ranty's progress along the freeman path for some time. It's not something to be undertaken lightly, I don't know anywhere near enough about the law to jump into such a thing as yet. Old Holborn, who is more of the 'Bah, just do it' persuasion, has already begun. I prefer to know every detail of what I'm getting into before I start.

The Captain has put up several examples of how Freemen conduct themselves in courtrooms. The Freeman cannot escape common law crimes such as violence or theft. It is not a licence to kill. However, many of the statute laws are concerned only with money, and money comes with contracts. You have no contract with your local council for payment of council tax. Their contract is with your birth certificate. Not with the name on it, with the certificate itself.

The first thing a court requires is that you identify yourself with that certificate and admit that it's you. If you don't, they can't proceed. I found it difficult to believe but here's the evidence.

It is appealing, that's for sure. Ten thousand police are to be cut, bin collections dropping to once a month, bus routes and libraries closing and services cancelled, while the town clerks earn more than the Prime Monster and are voting themselves pay rises. How can they justify their existence, never mind the rises, when they are no longer running anything beyond their office coffee machines?

Councils will soon exist solely for the collection of council tax. They will perform no other function at all. They will be purely money-sinks and still we will hear 'we must preserve frontline services' even when there aren't any. Knowing how to close down a trial based on council tax non-payment is going to be a vital skill in the very near future.

The first thing, then, is to realise that you are not who you think you are. You are not that fictional entity defined by the existence of a birth certificate. You are a separate, living creature and you can call yourself by any name you want.

Often, there are news stories about someone changing their name by deed poll to something daft like 'Gasboard Ratcatcher'. That doesn't help. Changing your name by deed poll is the same as British Petroleum changing their name to BP. You're still connected to that corporate entity that was invented on your behalf when you were born, just with a different name.

You don't need deed poll. You can go by whatever name you like. Once, it was possible to open a bank account under any name you fancied. Now you have to prove your identity. Yes, there were (and still are) those who use false names to commit crimes but the false name itself is not the crime. If it's the name you are known by, then it's not a false name at all. It's just not the one on your birth certificate.

There are many fine details to work through in this matter but it's worth working through them. The way the world is going, being real can be dangerous.


snorter Purcell said...

Yes I suspect that when Labour take control in Scotland and double council tax payments the 'legal fiction' will become more popular.
Why should taxpayers cover the cocaine payments for Mr Purcell and his 'comrades ' on the corrupt labour committees and councils ?
Snivelling little shits like Elmer fudd and his comrade Jim Devine and Jack O' Malawi should be told to get lost sharpish.
Troughing bastards.

junican said...

When I was about 17 yrs old, I used to go with my Dad to his Little club where he played cards with his mates. One of the guys who went to the club as a little old Irish chap. One day, when I was present, he was asked to sign some simple petition or something to do with the club. He refused.

It turned out that the reason that he refused was that he was totally unknown to the authorities. He did not exist. He had very, very simple needs. He did not trouble doctors. His family looked after him.

There are weird similar situations in this country. Do you know that it is not clear who owns land? There are vast track of the land of the UK of which the ownership is unknown.

I read Ranty's stuff some time ago, and watched his videos. As I remember, he refused to pay Council Tax. He reckoned that he had no contract with the Council and that he did not need the Council's services. He also refused to accept that the Courts had any authority over him, on the grounds that he was a Freeman of England. He refused to stand in court, and thus refused to accept the court's authority. It seems that the act of standing is important.

One must assume that Ranty's assets (house etc) are his own. One must also assume that he has a private income. I do not know how he handled income tax and such.

As you say, it is a tricky area. I really do admire his determination. Not many of us would have the courage.

Of course, one person can 'get away with it', but I rather think that if many people tried to do the same thing, it would very quickly be stamped out.

What is important is that his stand is against tyranny, from whatever corner it may appear.

Frank Davis said...

Councils will soon exist solely for the collection of council tax.

Well, what else are these councillors supposed to live off? They're doing a vital job, collecting council tax. It's vital because without it they'd be starving. Who cares whether the bins get emptied or schoolkids get educated? There are priorities, you know.

Oldrightie said...

It would be a joyous world where our taxes were spent as dictated by us and not the muppets we have to presently endure since some decades ago.

microdave said...

I wonder if Neil Innes knew about this when he wrote the song 40 odd years ago?

I think I still have the single somewhere, I must listen to the lyrics again...

NewsboyCap said...


Junican,"Of course, one person can 'get away with it', but I rather think that if many people tried to do the same thing, it would very quickly be stamped out".

If many people did do the same thing,they,could not possibly stamp it out.

What the good Captain and many others are doing is their 'DUTY' in Law,not trying to get away with anything

westcoast2 said...

Junican's statement "it would be quickly stamped out" does beg the question, how?

NewsboyCap suggests force of numbers. Maybe, yet what specific measures could they take?

Another Act of parliament, a statute? If the Freeman concept works then this can not work.

Imprisonment? They have tried this. It doesn't change anthing, indeed it may compound things as the imprisonment itself may be unlawful. In anycase if, as NewsboyCap suggests, enough people do it then the gaols will be full.

So it is a good question Junican has posed. How would they 'stamp it out'?

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks for the link Leggy.

Just for clarification (for Junican):

It is Corporation Tax I am withholding. Council Tax is next. Then Income Tax. And all for the same reason.

The legal fiction came into being so that we could act in commerce. The state cannot claim levies (fines & taxes) against the human being so a vehicle had to be created so that they could.

Magna Carta 1215 Ch.39 is explicit: travellers on the kings highways and byways MUST not be charged for the privilege. Those acting in commerce (turnip sellers and the like getting their produce to market) could. And they were charged (tolls) for using the roads and the bridges etc. But if you were not engaged in commerce the use was free. For all time. Remember that MC1215 is NOT a statute. It was created prior to our first parliament in 1265 and MPs (as much as they would like to) cannot amend or delete that which they (or their predecessors) have not created.

Because we haven't taught ourselves the lingo, when a copper stops us and asks "Are you the driver of this vehicle?" and "Who are your passengers?" we immediately tell him/her all the details.

But if you politely explain that you are not driving, you are travelling, in a carriage or conveyance, not a car or vehicle, with guests, not passengers (this implies you are taking a fare), there isn't much under common law that he/she can do at that point.

Giving them your name creates joinder, and saying that you "understand" immediately negates your rights. By "understanding" you just swapped your rights for their benefits, which is like swapping pure gold for plastic.

It's all a game. Trouble is, we were never taught the rules.

But we are catching on fast.


Anonymous said...

Dear Leg-iron

Perhaps we should create a new title: The Real Leg-iron. The Real Captain Ranty.

What's not to like?

Scare du Jour:

Strange how they are not compared with smoking tobacco.

The Real DP

Anonymous said...

"Do you know that it is not clear who owns land? There are vast track of the land of the UK of which the ownership is unknown."

I thought (may be wrong, though - someone else may know more), that the reigning Monarch basically owns ALL the land in the country, and indeed is the only person who is permitted to do so. Which is why, in legal parlance, you are regarded as a "freeholder" of the house which you think you've "bought," rather than the "owner," that is, you merely "freely" (i.e. indefinitely) "hold" the land from the Monarch in lieu of the money you've paid for the privilege.

But, as I say, others on here may know more .....

Leg-iron said...

Real DP - that's a cracker.

Anon - I suspect you own the house but not the land it's on.

It's different in Scotland, all land is owned by someone but everyone has the 'right to roam'. So you can cross a field of crops provided you don't damage the crop.

There's no law of trespass, only of damage, but the landowner decides what constitutes damage so it's not too clear.

junican said...

What I was talking about was that it appears that there are 'vast tracks' of land (and I mean 'the land' which is 'unaccounted for' at the land registry. The position of the Monarch is more theoretical than real.

But my real point in mentioning that was simply to illustrate that there are lots of situations which are hidden (do not exist) which are so intractible, like the ownership of land, that it is not worth the while of the Gov to try to sort the matter out.

rb said...

Im still not sure about this freeman approach. I am yet to see some learned opinion about it and to date I think the reasons and opinions that I have read in its support are rather clumsy.

What is clear is that the claim that the court recognised the "legal fiction" is a very stretched interpretation of what I read at the link to CR's post.

What really happened is that the judge couldn't be bothered to deal with this in what he expected to be a simple matter in his busy list for the day - it would be seen by any judge as an annoyance at this stage, so he kicked the issue back to the council. When you have an actual judgment of the court in the terms that are being trumpeted, which has survived the inevitable appeals to the "Supreme" court and/or the EU, then you will have won. Until then you are just dancing with the establishment which will, if enough people go down this road, simply seek to reinforce its own "right" (by violence, natch) to tax you and fine you and cart you off to jail. Only if enough people try this (which is essentially civil disobedience - as "they" will see it) will anything positive come from it.

Anonymous said...

WRT Junican's point about land ownership, it seems that there are pieces of land in England whose ownership is unregistered. There are steps that you can take to claim this land for yourself if you establish that 'there is no owner'.

A former neighbour of mine did it, having noticed that land beside his property was unused. Having substantially increased his garden, he then extended his house from a two bedroomed cottage to a rather nice family home.


Anonymous said...


I have the same problem with the Freeman concept. It sounds great, and I don’t for one second think that the people who advocate it and have websites about it are wrong – quite the contrary – I’m sure that within the strict letter of the law (i.e. the real law of Common Law) they are dead right. The trouble is, when 99.9% of the population are totally unaware of the situation – including the police, local authorities and, probably, most politicians (although I think the judiciary are probably aware of it) - then you are more likely to end up in a mental institution for being a raving nutter than you are to have your rights upheld. Now, I don’t mind going out on a limb for a principle, but there are some limits …… Try explaining it to a few people you know - the look of total and utter lack of comprehension on their faces will tell you all you need to know. The vast majority of people simply can't countenance deception on that scale and are much more likely to come to the conclusion that you have taken complete leave of your senses!

Unfortunately, a quick glance at some of the forums on the subject – often the best places for gleaning lots of information about anything – seem to be peppered with “Freeman zealots” whose one aim in life is to return to some kind of fairytale medieval lifestyle of living off the land, singing folk songs round roaring wood fires, surrounded by scores of rosy-cheeked children, and listening to the wise words of toothless “elders.” Yeah, right. That’s all very well until winter arrives, it's freezing cold, one of those rosy-cheeked children falls out of a tree and breaks its leg and your wife develops complications during a lovely natural(!) childbirth whereby forceps, an incubator and a blood transfusion are urgently required to save both mother and child. Any question – no matter how reasonable – is regarded as somehow subversive (one poster I read postulated the very pertinent question as to how the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, with all its legal implications, might impact on the whole Freeman movement, and was roundly condemned as a troublemaker and a troll without a single meaningful answer being given).

As with so many of these things which are basically a really good idea, it seems the Freeman movement has been somewhat taken over by a lot of people who are “into” it for all the wrong reasons – because they want to “drop out,” because they want to waft around in kaftans looking spiritual and “being in touch with Mother Earth” or because they simply don’t want to pay their parking tickets!

If I ever find a site which is written by realistic people for realistic people who are interested in all of this, I’ll let you know …….

opinions powered by