So not sure why after stating he was not a freeman, you'd then look up freeman and then attach that to him, then maq uncirtically accepted it as fact.
accept what as fact? I said I thought the articles he posted were interesting.
I wasn't really thinking of the guy specifically - just thought the 'free man' stuff was interesting - seems like an Internet led fad, which people have followed without great success in courts.
But aye, I didn't notice the bit in the video about the guy saying he wasn't a freeman. I haven't looked into the Scottish Sovereigns - I maybe will, but as bhibby points out they seem to use the same language 'David, son of Bob, of the family Smith' etc
Basically opting out of the law as it doesn't apply to them.
Is there any links to successful cases where they have won? I am interested.
Quite interesting, cheers.
So - they haven't won a court case then? The judge in Canada summing it up:
"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer"