The biggest lie perpetuated by many in the Sovereign/Freeman on the Land movements is that no one ever gets hurt… Currently, laws in this country are designed (believe it or not) to protect the public at large and to maintain the peace, but they are also twisted, misinterpreted and used to sidestep being brought to justice. The system is flawed as is the system of government and people worldwide are beginning to educate and empower themselves in order to reassert their rights. It is from this awakening that the Freeman and Sovereign movements were born. However, we cannot deny that the system that currently exists does provide us with protection and benefits for the majority of people. The Criminal Code of Canada for example, contains statutes that prosecute crimes such as sexual assault, theft, damage to property, murder, breaking and entering, kidnapping and the like; crimes that leave people physically hurt, traumatized and less than whole. Imagine a world where those laws or any laws no longer existed… because your country was ‘dissolved’ for instance… or because the legal system no longer exists? Freemen and Sovereign Citizens claim to be governed under either International, Common or Natural Law, some consider themselves Constitutionalists and Patriots, and others reject the idea of being governed at all. It is a confusing landscape for those who are new to these movements and even more confusing for those who are victims of them. These behaviors are not what the true advocates of the Freeman movement support but nonetheless, it’s the bad apples who get the most press. Take for example, the recent case of the Landlord who was issued a lien against her for a property she owned but rented to a Freeman. The Freeman stopped paying rent and the utilities and damaged and neglected the property. Once evicted and arrested, the landlord viewed the full extent of damage and unusual activities taking place within her rental property. She rightly called it ‘Domestic Terrorism’, but because of the incident it paints all Freemen and Sovereign Citizens with that same brush. See the article and video below:
Calgary homeowner tours home for first time since ‘sovereign citizen’ evicted
The ‘bad apple’ described above is not unique in his taking advantage of the Freeman movement. People like Steve Finney and Amy Smart have not been sold a bad bill of goods but have elected to pick and choose those aspects of the Freeman movement that fit with their goals. They are partly victims of Kevin Annett and his scam called the ITCCS, but are guilty of not educating themselves enough in the their rights and the law.
Perhaps its because of some aspect of their lives for which they felt some sense of entitlement. In fact, entitlement is precisely what is wrong with some within the Freeman/Sovereign Movements and society in general that leads to a persons inability to function within the society at large… Perhaps they smoke pot (or maybe grow it), maybe they didn’t pay their bills, or their parking ticket… maybe they drove drunk and got pulled over. Odds are good that at some point a run-in with Authority resulted with bad feelings, the feeling that they were wronged somehow. The undercurrent there though is the inability of the individual to look within and reflect on how they were personally responsible for their own behavior. We, as humans, have a tendency to blame everything around us for our problems… hey, just watch an episode of Judge Judy!! It is a convenient excuse to label the system, label the detractors, label the officers of the court as the bad guys. But where would they be without the person who is breaking the law?
The system we have is not perfect, but it is what we have that protects innocent people everyday from harm. Can it use reform? Absolutely! Ideally we would have a system that valued and protected our Universal Human Rights and the Freeman movement proposes that such a system is within our grasp we just have to reach for it. At the same time authorities must understand that the world is changing and laws must be considered ‘living’ documents not etched in stone and able to respond with the changing times to adequately protect the innocent. The reason that this article is being written (and now re-written) is that Kevin’s interpretation of Common Law is actually Lawless-ness… not ‘Precedent’ or ‘Case’ Law which is the actual definition of Common Law. Although the best layman’s terms definition can be found at Wikipedia.com.. it does provide enough insight to demonstrate that Kevin’s definition of Common Law is a trap for the gullible and angry persons who don’t like being held accountable for their actions.
“In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine “what the law is” in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts. Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines “what the law is”. Then, one applies that law to the facts”.
The best precedent for the ITCCS is the Nuremburg Trial – which was a criminal trial that lasted months and was not only televised, but provided the defendants with the opportunity of fair representation. Yes, the defendants had the opportunity to answer their charges… and better yet, they were arrested BEFORE being put on trial!… Imagine if the YouTube Tribunal Method had been an available judicial process during the Nuremburg Trial? What would have been the response by the world, to find out that it was shrouded in secrecy, failed to maintain proper legal documentation, failed to properly serve, detain, THEN try the defendants without proper legal representation, and then convict ALL of the accused with a biased jury in a matter of only 8 minutes? The international community would have been outraged. Kevin dares to compare his Kangaroo court with that of the Nuremburg Trials? You can understand why few rational people take Kevin and his ITCCS seriously. Rational people don’t just accept that Canada is Dissolved because some out of work Nutbar in Nanaimo says it’s so.
There are two videos that demonstrate just how polarized the argument both for and against the Freeman Movement really is. This is a dialogue that needs to continue to happen… a dialogue about the Freeman Movement as a solution and the recognition that there are those ‘guru’s’ like Kevin Annett who will always be there to take advantage of the movements for their own purposes. Ben Lowrey’s argument (below) on this is something I agree with, but the idea that we have no inherent Human Rights and that we need to remain slaves to the current system is NOT something I agree with. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth….