5

I've been reading about various groups purporting to be Freeman-on-the-land, which believe that contractual ties between the government and these people are only valid if the people consent to them. However, despite digging quite deep, I have not found a successful defence of such matters. Wikipedia's citation for a lack of legal success only gives examples of failures, but does not in fact make any claims about the success of the legal argument.

Has a Freeman-on-the-land argument ever been successful in court?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Hairy
  • 688
  • 5
  • 11
  • We want to focus our attention on doubtful claims that are widely held or are made by notable people. Please [provide some examples](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/883) of places where this claim is being made. – Jamiec Nov 30 '15 at 17:27
  • 3
    I think this is a notable question. There has been a relatively significant amount of mainstream media coverage on the subject, and [Wikipedia's citation for the OP's claim does not in fact answer the question](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/freeman-land-strategy-bullet-debt). The question should be edited to include relevant links and background, though. – ESultanik Nov 30 '15 at 18:05
  • I edited the question to add relevant links and a bit more context. – ESultanik Nov 30 '15 at 18:10
  • 4
    If something "only gives examples of failures" I think we can say that's a claim about the success of the legal argument. – DJClayworth Nov 30 '15 at 19:59
  • 4
    This is asking us to prove a negative. We can cite plenty of learned authorities explaining why it will never be a successful defence, but to prove it has never happened we would need to check every court case in the history of the world. – DJClayworth Nov 30 '15 at 20:18
  • Is "Freeman on the Land" the latest iteration of Sovereign Citizens? – Shadur Nov 30 '15 at 22:29
  • @Shadur: Wikipedia says maybe. – Oddthinking Nov 30 '15 at 23:52
  • @DJClayworth: We could use the technique of relying on an expert. However, Wikipedia already does that in a couple of places, so that wouldn't be adding anything. – Oddthinking Nov 30 '15 at 23:53

0 Answers0