it shows a strange, childlike respect for
the trappings of justice, and a
commitment to jargon not even the
stuffiest solicitor can match. This
thinking is to law as crystal healing is to
medicine and, like fake healing, it is not
as harmless as it appears. (Gardner,
2011b, p. 1 see Wessinger, 2000, p. 13,
about Freemen’s magical thinking)
He concluded his essay by pleading,
But law is the friend of political
progress, not its enemy. Making
companies and rich individuals pay their
share will depend on exactly those legal
and enforcement mechanisms that
freemen seek to undermine, and on the
rule of law that they mock. Freemanism
stands implicitly against social progress,
for a libertarian world is one where
everyone’s a law unto himself and
where the state has no right and no role.
We need to be aware of this nonsense so
as to resist it (Gardner, 2011b, p. 2).
The blogger Legal Bizzle returned to the debate,
this time publishing in the Guardian itself. He
concluded his essay with yet another
condemnation of Freemen philosophy and
practice:
Even in good economic times, many
people struggle with debt, and these are
very far from good times. I can
understand the feeling that lenders
pushed easy credit to people who could
never repay it, and I won’t try to defend
aggressive debt collection tactics. But
defaulting is not the easy option that Jon
Witterick makes it out to be. There is no
magic bullet for debt problems…. On
the contrary, there is every chance that
such strategies will make things worse,
for the debtor and (through higher credit
costs, for everyone else) the wider
economy. (Legal Bizzle, 2011b, p. 2)
Clearly the Guardian had unleashed a firestorm.
When, however, the magazine for the judiciary
of England and Wales ran a 2-page article on the
Freemen in 2012, it limited criticisms only to
showing some examples of Freemen strategies
failing in court (Freemen on the
Land/Benchmark, 2012, p. 19).
Similar interest in the Freemen, followed by
hostile responses from barristers, occurred in
Ireland (Freeman on the Land/RationalWiki,
2013, p. 2)—a country crippled by a debt crisis.
In May 2010, Stephen Sutton received a traffic
ticket for speeding, driving without a license,
and driving without insurance, but he disrupted
his Kilcock District Court hearing with typical
antics. He denied “that he was the ‘legal fiction
Stephen Sutton’ and ask[ed] that he be addressed
as ‘Stephen of the Family Sutton.’” He then
questioned the nature of the fine and of the
authority of the garda to have stopped him. He
continued by questioning which law—maritime
admiralty or common law—the court was
operating under. The judge had him removed
from the courtroom (Rooney, 2012, p. 13). Later
in the year (September 2010), Kenny Sludds (or
Kenny of the Family Sludds) threatened to
charge garda with rates of up to €2,000 per hour
for their impositions on him regarding a legal
matter (p. 13). Then in August 2011, another
member of the Sludds family (Bobby)
challenged a judge to produce his oath of office.
Bobby received a suspended sentence for not
having ensured his automobile and paid the auto
tax, but when he finally agreed to sign a bond to
keep the peace, initially he did so using another
name. (Presumably he was mixing the use of his
secular name with a Freeman one [p. 12]). In
early March 2012, “a Freeman … appeared in an
injunction application before the High Court,”
and an earlier High Court case in 2011 involving
securitization of loans likely had involved a
Freeman (p. 15).
In April 2013, Irish barrister Fergal Crehan
wrote a media piece that echoed the concerns of
his English counterparts concerning Freeman
law:
The Freeman theory is the legal
equivalent of quack medicine. It’s often
hilarious, but it can be dangerous. There
are a lot of frightened and vulnerable
people out there, and as with quack
medicine, the attraction of a simple
solution is great. Given the current
10 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
the trappings of justice, and a
commitment to jargon not even the
stuffiest solicitor can match. This
thinking is to law as crystal healing is to
medicine and, like fake healing, it is not
as harmless as it appears. (Gardner,
2011b, p. 1 see Wessinger, 2000, p. 13,
about Freemen’s magical thinking)
He concluded his essay by pleading,
But law is the friend of political
progress, not its enemy. Making
companies and rich individuals pay their
share will depend on exactly those legal
and enforcement mechanisms that
freemen seek to undermine, and on the
rule of law that they mock. Freemanism
stands implicitly against social progress,
for a libertarian world is one where
everyone’s a law unto himself and
where the state has no right and no role.
We need to be aware of this nonsense so
as to resist it (Gardner, 2011b, p. 2).
The blogger Legal Bizzle returned to the debate,
this time publishing in the Guardian itself. He
concluded his essay with yet another
condemnation of Freemen philosophy and
practice:
Even in good economic times, many
people struggle with debt, and these are
very far from good times. I can
understand the feeling that lenders
pushed easy credit to people who could
never repay it, and I won’t try to defend
aggressive debt collection tactics. But
defaulting is not the easy option that Jon
Witterick makes it out to be. There is no
magic bullet for debt problems…. On
the contrary, there is every chance that
such strategies will make things worse,
for the debtor and (through higher credit
costs, for everyone else) the wider
economy. (Legal Bizzle, 2011b, p. 2)
Clearly the Guardian had unleashed a firestorm.
When, however, the magazine for the judiciary
of England and Wales ran a 2-page article on the
Freemen in 2012, it limited criticisms only to
showing some examples of Freemen strategies
failing in court (Freemen on the
Land/Benchmark, 2012, p. 19).
Similar interest in the Freemen, followed by
hostile responses from barristers, occurred in
Ireland (Freeman on the Land/RationalWiki,
2013, p. 2)—a country crippled by a debt crisis.
In May 2010, Stephen Sutton received a traffic
ticket for speeding, driving without a license,
and driving without insurance, but he disrupted
his Kilcock District Court hearing with typical
antics. He denied “that he was the ‘legal fiction
Stephen Sutton’ and ask[ed] that he be addressed
as ‘Stephen of the Family Sutton.’” He then
questioned the nature of the fine and of the
authority of the garda to have stopped him. He
continued by questioning which law—maritime
admiralty or common law—the court was
operating under. The judge had him removed
from the courtroom (Rooney, 2012, p. 13). Later
in the year (September 2010), Kenny Sludds (or
Kenny of the Family Sludds) threatened to
charge garda with rates of up to €2,000 per hour
for their impositions on him regarding a legal
matter (p. 13). Then in August 2011, another
member of the Sludds family (Bobby)
challenged a judge to produce his oath of office.
Bobby received a suspended sentence for not
having ensured his automobile and paid the auto
tax, but when he finally agreed to sign a bond to
keep the peace, initially he did so using another
name. (Presumably he was mixing the use of his
secular name with a Freeman one [p. 12]). In
early March 2012, “a Freeman … appeared in an
injunction application before the High Court,”
and an earlier High Court case in 2011 involving
securitization of loans likely had involved a
Freeman (p. 15).
In April 2013, Irish barrister Fergal Crehan
wrote a media piece that echoed the concerns of
his English counterparts concerning Freeman
law:
The Freeman theory is the legal
equivalent of quack medicine. It’s often
hilarious, but it can be dangerous. There
are a lot of frightened and vulnerable
people out there, and as with quack
medicine, the attraction of a simple
solution is great. Given the current
10 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
