Mentioning Robert Arthur:Menard in the same category as those men is a total farce. Here's what Wikipedia says about his theories:
"Freemen" believe that statute law is a
contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence - their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by their birth certificate; some freeman will claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and that this is the entity which is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name, for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".[SUP]
[1][/SUP]
Many FOTL beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of Admiralty or Maritime law, which they claim governs the commercial world. These beliefs stem from fringe interpretations of various nautical-sounding words, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a "ship", the court's occupants as "passengers" and claiming that anyone leaving are "men overboard".[SUP]
[1][/SUP]
Freemen will try to claim common law (as opposed to admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking "Do you have a claim against me?" This, they contend, removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, so that proceedings would have to go forward according to their version of common law. This procedure has never been used successfully.[SUP]
[1][/SUP]
Freemen often will not accept legal representation; they believe that to do so would mean contracting with the state. They believe that the United Kingdom and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and are therefore under admiralty law. They believe that since the abolition of the gold standard in 1917, UK currency is backed not by gold but by the people (or the legal fiction of their persons). They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation. Therefore, a court is a place of business, and a summons is an invitation to discuss the matter at hand, with no powers to require attendance or compliance.[SUP]
[1][/SUP]"
Total butterfly net bullshit. There are then 7 cases from the United Kingdom where judges laughed people who made these arguments off to jail; and this gem from a Canadian court, on the stuff I just quoted above:
"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Meads argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA ["Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments"] 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 gurus customer."
Indeed, I recall a David Merrill post with a sample document that I'm supposed to file with my county recorder or some similarly situated official which is supposed to do a lot of the same things this guy claims his document was supposed to do. Alas, it's pure lunacy.
