In a recent Canadian judgment,
Meads v. Meads, the Court considered the Freemen on the Land movement in an attempt to suppress a series of cases from this movement.
The Freemen on the Land movement believe that they are part of a lawful rebellion against legal
institutions. They argue that if the jurisdiction of the Court is denied then the Court is not in a position to impose sanctions on the individual, thus enabling the members to escape taxes, debt collectors, and criminal charges.
The Freemen on the land movement has grown in popularity during the downturn in the economy.
The Court in Meads explored the movement’s theories and leaders and exposed the flaws which exist in the movement.
The judgment is long and detailed and includes a history of the movement, guidelines on how to
spot the Freemen and appropriate Court strategies for dealing with the Freemen. The judgement
may provide guidance to other Courts and other jurisdictions on how to effectively deal with this
movement.
The presence of this movement is not limited to the Canadian Courts and in January this year, a
Northern Ireland Court considered a number of claims which appeared to mirror the beliefs of the
movement. In this
case the appellant stated “Since I am a living man, I operate under a foreign jurisdiction to the legal system. I already tried this case in my private foreign jurisdiction court, and find... [the defendant] in default judgment.”
The Judge dismissed the appeal saying that it is a waste of the Court’s time to consider arguments
which have no basis in law.