‘Paper terrorists’: New approach to Freemen on the land

Over the months that we’ve been following the Hampstead Hoax and its Merry Band of Hoaxateers, we’ve almost become accustomed to the ‘Freeman on the land’ bilge that some of them spout. There’s Neelu, of course, with her £13 trillion liens and her remedies and her oaths of office and arresting judges and whatnot.

And the other day we were introduced to another ‘Freeman’ type, old Melted Welly, who provided a few moments of entertainment on Angie’s latest webcast. As an acolyte of the noted Irish comedian Patrick “You can stick your ambulance up yer arse” Cullinane, Mr Duane has been noted in the past for blurting bilge such as the following:


Sure, John, whatever you say.

All of this reminded us of a story from Canada that one of our readers kindly passed along to us the other day:


“Paper terrorism”? That’s a new one on us. Intrigued, we read on:

EDMONTON—Police have charged a self-proclaimed Freeman on the Land with carrying out a “paper terrorism” campaign against a peace officer who issued him a speeding ticket.

Allen Boisjoli, 45, of Vegreville, Alta., faces a charge of intimidating a justice official and is to appear in an Edmonton courtroom Nov. 7.

Police say they have charged Boisjoli and other Freemen with intimidation before, but it’s the first time the charge has been laid in Canada strictly dealing with unlawful paperwork.

Freemen, who don’t recognize government or authority, often use the tactic of overwhelming courts with documents to try to have charges against them dismissed or withdrawn, said Det. Rae Gerrard.

“They use a plethora of documents which really mean absolutely nothing,” Gerrard said Wednesday.

“They’re just cutting and pasting from all over the Internet, from laws all over the world. They put them together into hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents and flood the courts with this.”

The term “paper terrorism” has been used by the courts in previous cases to describe a misuse of legal processes.

Boisjoli was pulled over by the Beaver County officer near Tofield, about 70 kilometres east of Edmonton, in May 2015. Boisjoli posted a YouTube video of his friendly-yet-stubborn interaction with the officer, in which Boisjoli said speeding isn’t a crime.

He never paid the ticket and a judge convicted him when he failed to show up and fight it in court, said Gerrard.

It’s alleged that Boisjoli filed various false documents against the peace officer over three months, including a personal lien on the officer’s property, claiming an award of $225,000 for being detained and issued the ticket.

Gerrard said Boisjoli has a history of similar behaviour. Court records show he was convicted in 2013 of intimidating two lawyers with Alberta Justice and sentenced to 10 ½ months in jail. He was also found guilty of assault.

The officer added that Boisjoli is also part of several other groups claiming self-sovereignty. An online profile lists Boisjoli as founder of Judicial Watch and the Sovereign Coalition of Exempt Natural Entities.

Members of the Freemen-on-the-Land movement commonly claim they do not require a driver’s licence, assert their rights to have weapons for self-protection and squat in unoccupied homes.

In 2013, a Freeman took over a Calgary duplex and claimed it as his embassy. After the landlady struggled for two years to get the man out, police arrested him on outstanding warrants in Quebec.

The Law Society of British Columbia and B.C. Notaries have issued several warnings about Freemen and estimated the group could number as many as 30,000 in Canada. The FBI considers the movement a domestic terror threat in the United States.

So it seems we’re not alone with our plague of Freeman nutters. (Not sure whether to take comfort from that, or be depressed about it.)

And fascinating that the Canadian courts seem to have hit upon the nub of the matter: Freemen on the land who try to overwhelm the courts with meaningless pseud0-legal paperwork are, in fact, attempting to intimidate justice officials.

In fact, if you listen to people like Mr Duane, they will state explicitly that their goal is to create havoc in the courts, and thus evade any consequences. Slapping them with this kind of charge might well put an end to their shenanigans, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

It seems that American courts, too, are getting wise to the antics of the Freemen. We were vastly entertained by this snippet from a Florida court:

Judge Hurley, wherever you are, we salute you!


93 thoughts on “‘Paper terrorists’: New approach to Freemen on the land

  1. So Cullinane, Weaver, Berry, Disney et al are paper terrorists. It’s official. Thanks for sharing this, EC. I wish the British courts would wake up and officially recognise this phenomenon too. Kudos to Canada!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. It’s a form of harassment isn’t it?. People open these letters, no matter who they are, and initially read something saying their home or assets are about to be seized or a lien taken out on them and the immediate feeling is of distress.
    They may read further and realise it’s Freeman nonsense but the very notion of harassment is that you can feel distressed, upset or in fear even if that passes quickly.

    Debt collector agencies design letters to cause such distress and fear in the receiver.

    Kudos to that judge for his good humour and cleverness in running rings around that goose. I noticed the other defendants sort of woke up from their boredom and if they were lucky they received lenient treatment from the judge who seemed in very good humour after the engagement although I spotted one who sort of kept going into a total slump….probably sharing a cell with the Freeman and been driven crazy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It really is harassment–basically attempting to create fear and confusion in order to win. That judge was brilliant though. I liked his description of the $100 million lien for…”something, I don’t know”, LOL.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: ‘Paper terrorists’: New approach to Freemen on the land | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

    • “Back in 2009, nine eco-activists in Scotland shut down the Aberdeen Airport for two and a half hours to protest the expansion of the country’s airports and subsequently increasing the levels of greenhouse gasses (if you believe in man-made global warming). In 2008, another eco-group was charged with vandalism after painting a smokestack on a coal-powered electrical plant. These individuals were tried before a jury and acquitted under English Common-Law stating that they had a ‘lawful excuse’ as they were damaging a small property so that they could protect the society at large. ”

      ….Ummm. Why was an offence committed in Scotland tried in what is effectively a foreign court? It’s a popular misconception that Scotland EVER lost its parliament, education system or legal system.


      • There is a clear diagnostic in the quote that it is infected with Pseudo-legal or Freeman BS – the word is “common law”. This is a freeman code for the fantasy legal system which allows you to do what you want, as opposed to legislation which they believe they don’t have to comply with unless they agree to. Similarly they make a distinction between “lawful” which is OK, and “legal” which is not. Rather oddly the term “freeman” comes from magna carta which is not common law, it’s a statute!
        That said, it is however based on a real case – in Maidstone, Kent, not Scotland – and the defendants claimed the statutory (so not common law) defence of lawful excuse. Jurors don’t give reasons so one can’t be certain that was the reason for the verdict, but it’s likely. The verdict was against the judge’s direction on the law
        As for the distinction between travel and driving in Judge Hurley’s court, the US constitution guarantees a right to travel between the states which American pseudolawyers maintain means a right to drive a car without insurance, licence, running people down, etc. As is always the case, that has migrated here despite not even having the feeble cover of the US constitution.
        Freemen use the term “colour of law” a lot and despite my earnest studies in pseudo-law I haven’t got to the bottom of what they mean by that.
        But I do know why they claim all courts are Admiralty Courts, it’s either because courts in the US have flags with gold bullion fringes behind the bench, which I think you’ll agree explains everything, or because courts have docks, or because we all have berth certificates (I’m not making this up).
        The best guide to Freemen, IMO is here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land . A good read and very funny. I would hope anyone reading it would realise there really is nothing in it at all, but as the article itself says, the capacity for people to delude themselves is infinite (and if it weren’t there wouldn’t be this website, would there?

        Liked by 1 person

    • It is frightening that so many people can be convinced this whole thing is genuine and actually believe they have powers to arrest people given to them by an imaginary court.


  4. Poor John Duane, his feckin finger is hurting him.
    Ewwww ! I just realised what he’s up to !. He and that “hot blooded Yank” have something in common.
    All this talk of child abuse etc turns them on.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If the ITCCS doesn’t help (wouldn’t you think Cult Leader The Queen would have handed herself in by now? No she taunts Kevin Annett by sending her grandson and his wife to Canada on tour)…there is always the The International Tribunal for Natural Justice [ITNJ] these Freeman can turn to run by a body of obviously sane (?) jurists(?) including ITNJ Chief Justice Sir John Walsh of Brannagh.

    OK the Knighthood title is bogus and “Sir John” has been classed as a vexatious litigant but when did pesky details like that every bother these folk ?.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ah yes. The ITNJ…Sacha stone had Annett involved in this as well until a little bird sent a link to a few anti-Annett pages. Apparently an ex Canadian police officer was handling the legal stuff and was bringing Annett in. I suspect this guy was the ‘source’ of all the Montreal ‘leaks’.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Even though I’m not a Tory supporter I don’t see why any MP or PM should be accused of eating babies. Wonder what this means if anything:

    “You anonymously reported United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May Eat Babies for harassment.

    Thanks for your feedback
    Sep 20
    Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the Page you reported for harassment and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.
    Please let us know if you see anything else that concerns you. If you want us to look at something specific on a Page, be sure to report the content (ex: photo), not the entire Page. We want to keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Our new PM’s surname does lend a glorious ambiguity to everything she is involved in. Possibly Facebook are reading the pages title as “Prime Minister Theresa may eat babies (equally she might not)”.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. I understand that in Canada and (I think) the US you can stop a company trading by paying a fee to file a lien against them; so a plethora of frivolous liens really can eventually drive a company out of business. (I don’t claim any legal expertise.)

    The purveyors of liens we have come across in this country never file anything properly with a court and so are usually ignored.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. You’ve probably all seen it before and rejoiced as P. Barnes proffers a counter-argument to a Freeman. Skip to 2:00 if you’re pressed for time. There’s literally no limit to the number of times I could watch this and laugh.

    Liked by 3 people

      • Oh, I’m not…… Quite apart from everything else the way he used that mocking tone with the man’s name when he thought the chap couldn’t ‘answer back’. – Even if he’d had a point that was just ‘too personal’.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Nice one P.Barnes. I am surprised that the Freeman didn’t shout out at how he doesn’ t consent to be being tasered. Normally the first words out of their mouths when told to do something is ‘i don’t consent’ which usually ends up with them in handcuffs .


    • I don’t like the way this idiot speaks to the Court staff, but having worked in Court for years I know that you have to deal with awkward people and I thought the man with the taser was completely unskilled. In an English Court we would have called for reinforcements and walked this guy to the door while he blathered on and left him on the pavement, or got the police to deal with him, or both. There’s no need to taser or shoot anyone in a situation lked this. The taser should be the last resort and only used if you need to protect yourself or someone else. Makes me feel sort of sick watching it.

      I hope we never act like this in English courts, no matter how much of an arrogant nuisance someone is.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. I think that there may be some sort of truth/value at the heart of the ‘Freeman’ stuff. A sort of argument in favour of common law perhaps. The problem is that the petty scammers, crooks and free loaders use it in an attempt to tie up and confuse due process. I don’t mind some of it, such as a person with a legitimate grievance using it against say, a debt collection agency. I owe a small debt to such an agency which I don’t pay on principal. A trivial sum passed on to them after a dispute with my car insurance a few years ago. I must admit, I had good fun with that.

    The example Joe cited is perhaps a good example of using common law in a way that might be regarded as ‘lawful’.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sorry Midicon; I was laughing at the clip not your comment…..

      My point is that there is a difference between “common law” and “English Common-Law” – Whatever the latter may be! Scots law is a mixed legal system containing civil law and common law elements. It is now, and always has been, a different thing from so-called ‘English law’. And the author of that pices seems to have missed this very basic point; as Sassenachs often do! 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      • As an Irish man, and a non-lawyer, I must admit to being confused about the Scots legal system, probably because in some ways the legal system in the ROI is relatively similar to the UK, whereas you Scots (contrarian as always!) insist on your own system. 🙂

        In my more cynical/pragmatic moments, I think that Irish ‘independence’ always was a bit of a sham (Irish ‘neutrality’ certainly is and was), but that might lead us into complicated questions outside of the scope of this blog.


        • ^ Actually, I’ll explain further what I mean in the second paragraph of my post above.

          Irish military ‘neutrality’ has always been, frankly, a bit of a joke (with all due respect to all that have served in the Irish defence forces, navy, and Air Corps). If you are a neutral country, then you should have at least the minimum of self-defence capability, otherwise you are posing. It was always clear that the Brits/Yanks/Nato would defend Eire in the Cold War if, for example, any one of Mr Gorbachev’s predecessors went mad and decided to attack launch nukes on the western flank.

          So I just wonder what the Scottish nationalists – whom I have sympatico for, on principle – but I wonder if their plans are entirely realistic. As in, if you want to go independent, how are you going to defend yourselves?


          • I’m very much in favour of Scottish independence myself, but I’m not aware of any realistic plans for it. Oddly enough we were discussing this earlier in the evening as a (largely) pro-independence group. Many people feel we were sold a real dummy by Sturgeon over the Brexit campaign. And in the (unlikely) event she gets her second referendum, she’s likely to find a good number of dyed-in-the-wool ‘independents’ vote to stay with the UK! The Scots legal system is simply a product of the fact that Scotland was never fully subsumed, and it evolved from slightly-different roots. We never lost our own education system either, and in fact the Parliament was simply ‘reconvened’ rather than reconstituted; it never really went away. As for Ireland, being one of those Scots who would be entitled to hole an Irish passport, I find the whole situation both tragic and cautionary.

            Liked by 1 person

    • The real problem is once you get these people involved in more serious cases.

      “Elizabeth Watson came to public attention in 2011 as a self-styled legal adviser for Victoria Haigh in a (child) custody case; she was given a nine-month prison sentence for contempt of court (later suspended). She had defaced court documents by writing the words “no contract” and otherwise refused to accept or acknowledge the authority of a court of law, by amongst other things refusing to respond to the written legal notices or other correspondences from the court, and styled and addressed herself and Ms Haigh in the irregular fashion as “Elizabeth of the Watson family” and “Victoria of the Haigh family” respectively, instead of their names in the normal and usual mode of rendering.”

      From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

      Liked by 1 person

      • There is an interesting thing though….. In that article frequent mention is made of the United Kingdom, and I completely understand where the author is ‘coming from’ on that. – But, whilst it might be accepted that what is commonly known as ‘common law’ as it was absorbed by the colonies and other places originated in Middle-Ages England; Scots common law is a different thing that grew from the customary laws of the different cultures which inhabited Scotland. These in turn became fused with feudalism by the Scottish Kings to yield a very different beast from that over the border.

        So, in reality this so-called common law of they wish to prostrate themselves to is perhaps better described as ‘Colonial Law’; and isn’t even common to all parts of the United Kingdom! What’s more I suspect, being a relic of British Colonialism, there are quite a few parts of the world – and probably quite a few free-thinking people that will not submit to or be governed by that…. They were saying they were FREEmen on the land? – Oddly enough, they sound like a bunch of delusional serfs to me! 😉


      • The Haigh case is interesting because it also involved false accusations of CSA which were so egregious that the judge decided on an open court. This was done to demonstrate that the father was entirely innocent and had a right to have this made public. The utterly incompetent Elizabeth Watson made things worse than they might have been, but the mother’s behaviour was monstrous enough.

        Liked by 1 person

    • So many however just seem to pluck things out of the air.
      Patrick Cullinane the scourge pf the perpetrators of Talmudic Law continues to misquote the Magna Carta as claiming it says people must be tried by a jury of their peers but it says no such thing and trying to tell any of these Freeman the same they simply will not listen.

      You would have to scour the secure units of places like Broadmoor to find Patrick’s peers.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The example cited by Joe is an example of someone using a legal defence set out in an Act of Parliament, in other words, exactly the opposite of freeman stuff.
      “Common law” means a) the legal system originating in England which applies in certain other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Israel, as opposed to (say) the civil or Roman law system which applies in France, South Africa and (to some extent) Scotland b) laws which are binding through precedent and custom, not statute (e.g. murder), c) in contradistinction to Equity, the legal principles determined in the old Court of Chancery. “Legal” and “lawful” mean the same thing, the only distinction is etymological as in the distinction between “regal” and “kingly” – one is from Latin, one from Old English. Except in pseudo-law, “common law” does not mean “anything I want”, “it’s lawful to borrow money and not pay it back”, or any other Get Out of Gaol/debt Free card.
      The first freeman I met had parked in a disabled parking space and then run over the council officer who pointed that out, while most Freemen just don’t want to pay money, some of them are very unpleasant indeed. And while parking in the parking space would have been a fixed penalty, he ended up imprisoned having been convicted and refusing to comply with his community order. It’s a lose-lose game, but I suppose Freemen are happier as they think they’re winning, however many bad things happen to them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the lose-lose aspect puzzles me. I have to wonder how they can fail to notice that their comrades-in-delusion keep getting their cars and houses repossessed, and why the bailiff seems to be constantly at the door.


      • Actually, I was quoting (and questioning) rather than citing….

        I made the point elsewhere that ‘common law’ as it evolved in Scotland is a different thing, emerged from different roots, to that which originated in England and influenced so much of the colonised world. And this is something which is stressed when Scots law is studied at even an elementary level. – Actually the basics are taught in Schools and as part of many/most business courses and of course (as in my own case) as part of studies in media and PR. And that’s the crux of the matter – the term ‘common law’ is not really interchangeable with English Common Law; it’s not even common to the whole of the British isles and therefore far from universal, or really ‘common’. And that’s just the first hurdle these ‘fuckwit-on-the-buroo’ types (as we commonly call them up here) go tumbling over.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. The trouble with truther junkies and justice warriors is they dont appear to have any real friends to advise them to calm down and get a grip.If they have a point about this or that they always seem to lose perspective and want to change the whole world with immediate effect with little regard for how this could impact the lives of ordinary people.Their “burning issue” is the only issue in town.

    Nothing wrong with passion but if there is a complete absence of humility or consideration for others these people end up losing any merit they or their issue may have had with all the over zeolous blinkered hysterics.

    The obfuscation of mix and match ancient legal terms gleaned by smartarses “off the internet” will only ever backfire miserably resulting only in harming the public purse and wasting court time.The sooner such wastes of space are dealt with the better for all in my view.Tasering whilst effective is a tad draconian.

    A little obfuscation can help get one out of a tricky hole at times though.


        • Oh Dear ! I thought that advert for “Project World School” was a huge send-up and at the end the comedians would reveal themselves but alas it’s all too real and is really just another travel company selling overpriced trips to woolly headed Yanks just out of College who think if they learn to milk a Yak in Peru or grow an organic potato in Wales, World Peace will descend upon the planet.

          As for Mel Ve’s introduction of her “star” presenters who gush over the wondrous network because it’s so difficult to get on “mainstream media”, I’ve found Patrick Cullinane’s Jury of His Peers.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Never fear, Mik. We’ve got her interview with a real Super Soldier to look forward to soon.
      I almost can’t wait for the lulz with that one. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • If she is a man and she gave birth to three kids then she could make a fortune at medical conferences. She is just a woman who has ruined her throat, and skin, with too many cigarettes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If she just did a strip on camera then she could verify if she was a man or a woman.

        Why don’t you try that for a living Angela?

        Probably a market for it.

        Stripping off her clothes might put the viewing figures up, because that “show” really was diabolical.

        Imo the worst so far.

        Looks like Angela may be running out of steam, repeating her tales.

        Bring back Rupert.

        Is there any news on what is happening with him?

        I’m assuming he’s still in England if the passport being taken by the Police/Authorities is true?


        • You want Angela to show her cult tattoos? (Double checks that I didn’t make a typo).

          Please don’t encourage her. The world isn’t ready for the APD nude review (choreography by Araya Soma).

          Liked by 1 person

  11. How bloody tedious she is. She was going to go for a break five minutes ago because she wanted a pee, but she is still there.


  12. “That was one of the subjects…in the attempt to discredit me over the Hampstead case..one of the tactics to try and silence me.. was to call me a charity scammer.”

    No, it wasn’t an attempt to silence you, Angie. It was to expose you for what you truly are.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Tell you what her show is a very good cure for insomnia. Maybe someone should download it and sell it to insomniac friends… Hang on that would be cruel but it would ensure sleep!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. More evidence that Angela Power-Disney and her comrades actively promote and associate with child abusers and seek to shift blame onto others.

    Marie Black was jailed for life in an horrendous case of organized child abuse but who assisted Marie Black & her children flee the UK originally ?.
    A trio we are well acquainted with and who the Hampstead Hoaxers class as ‘brave warriors & whistle-blowers” and compatriots : Ian Josephs, Christopher Booker and John hemming.

    These meddling folk armed with half-truths and fanatical beliefs should share blame along with Power-Disney (and the others) who blithely believe social services act in a conspiracy to remove children for Satanic purposes or whatever. They actively promote the claim that no child should ever be separated from a parent despite clear evidence that some parents are abusive and amoral destructive people, This is what they have done in Hampstead and the Marie Black case should be a warning of what evils this lot can unleash.

    “Marie Black sentenced to life in prison for ‘utterly depraved’ rape and sexual abuse of children over 10-year period ”

    “What happens if you don’t know the whole story… or you don’t care? The links between Hemming, Booker and Josephs.’

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well I don’t understand this at all.

      Angela it seems believes that Marie Black and her cohorts are guilty.

      Yet I’m sure that other members of the “Hampstead con crew” believe the woman was set up and is innocent.

      Was Sabine one of those that thought Marie Black was innocent?

      I can’t remember off hand but if it was Sabine, she wasn’t the only one.

      Seems there is a conflict of opinion…


  15. “These meddling folk armed with half-truths and fanatical beliefs should share blame along with…who blithely believe social services act in a conspiracy to remove children for Satanic purposes or whatever. They actively promote the claim that no child should ever be separated from a parent despite clear evidence that some parents are abusive and amoral destructive people, This is what they have done in Hampstead and the….case should be a warning of what evils this lot can unleash.”

    ^ Ghost of Sam, I redacted names from my quote of part of your post, possibly due to over-caution or paranoia on my part, but this is now getting truly weird to me.

    What I’m trying to say is that my understanding was that the SRA claims back in the 1980s and 1990s were, for the most part, put forward by people who believed that the social services were essentially doing the right thing in removing children from families which – the believers in SRA claimed – were involved in SRA/ritual abuse of the kids.

    Whereas, these days, the SRA believers are claiming that it is the social services that are attempting to remove kids from families in order to, as you put it, ‘remove children for Satanic purposes or whatever’.

    I’m pretty confused right now, I must admit!


Comments are closed.