I am fascinated with the law. And, for someone without formal qualifications in it, I have a reasonable grasp of it. Like most people, I have issues understanding some of the nuance that goes along with it, and on a fundamental level, but I don’t approve of some aspects [eg. that the Police’s evidence in a criminal trial is called “Facts”, whereas I think the word ‘fact’ suggests something a little more than “our version of the story”].
Since I do a bit of reading of legal matters, and frequent some forums inhabited by lawyers, I’ve started to discover a weird little sub-culture called the Freeman on the Land movement.
The Freemen on the Land are essentially a group who reject the idea that governments have the power to make and enforce laws. They seem to have the idea that for a law to bind a citizen, the citizen has to approve of the law, and essentially a contract has to exist between the citizen and the state.
While this is an interesting idea, it is – of course – complete fantasy.
Some of their other weird idiosyncrasies are that they argue the difference between whether they are a “person” or a “human being”; they frequently have crackpot naming standards like “I am Dermott of the clan Banana” (which somehow makes me a separate entity to “Dermott Banana”); they seem obsessed with the idea that courts only have jurisdiction in maritime matters; and – somewhat unsurprisingly – they often spout pseudo-Biblical defences for their rejections of modern legislation.
The best example of a court dismantling their delusions comes from Alberta, Canada: the Meads v Meads case which I read from end to end over a few days. And I wonder what it says about me that I find such things more amusing and entertaining than many other ways to spend my time