More News on “FREEMAN ON THE LAND”
A brief update on my earlier blog (May 16th 2012) upon the phenomenon of persons wishing to Notarise their “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” in order to claim exemption from the jurisdictions of Parliament and the Courts.
I find the situation both fascinating and sad. People are being duped – typically people under pressure, with difficult financial or other worries, are being told that they can in effect elect to opt out of all of the aspects of modern life – taxation, Courts, that kind of irksome business – simply by asking a Notary to certify their magic forms.
The advice is promulgated on websites by self-styled “Gurus” with a variety of motivations.
The movement seems to have started in Canada and there are many more references to it in Canadian case law than in UK. I have seen several however, here in Leeds.
One Canadian Judge in particular was so concerned that too many litigants were causing disruption both to their own lives (getting imprisoned) and to the Courts (pursuing nonsensical claims and wasting Court time) that he has prepared in the course of a judgment there, a detailed critique of the problem and the profiles of the various ways in which the “Gurus” promote their false advice.
He asks some very canny questions
“Last, I have some questions you may wish to direct to those gurus who provide you advice:
“1. Why do these gurus seem to have little, if any, wealth, when they say they hold the proverbial keys to untold riches?
“2. Why do those gurus not go to court themselves, if they are so certain of their knowledge? If they say they have been to court, ask them for the proceeding file number, and see if their account is accurate. Those are public records.
“3. Can that guru identify even one reported court decision where their techniques proved successful? If not, why then are all successes a tale of an unnamed person, who knew someone who saw that kind of event occur?
“4. How are their ideas different and distinct from those surveyed and rejected in these Reasons?
“5. How are these advisors different from the OPCA gurus who have been unsuccessful and found themselves in jail? What did Porisky, Warman, and Lindsay do wrong?
“6. Will your advisors promise to indemnify you, when you apply the techniques they claim are foolproof? If not, why?
“7. If they cannot explain these points, then why should you pay them for their legal nonsense?”
If you find all of this as fascinating as I do, you can read the whole judgment here http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
( – Warning – There is a lot to read – You might take all day!)