By Bosco – Irish Sentinel Contributor –

We are living in troubling times. Institutions that were once trusted have lost their credibility. The legacy media no longer disseminates the news but biased commentary. I am not a fan of Noam Chomsky on many issues, but he is right when it comes to the industrial media complex and its ability to manufacture consent to suit the vested interests of those who own and run the media. The Church too, in particular the Catholic Church, has been scandalised by abuse scandals leading many to abandon the faith. The disillusionment extends also to the political establishment, academia, the courts, the police, the teaching profession and even medicine. Genuine data emerging now suggests, as many of us knew already (or least had our heckles raised enough to question the absurd narrative) is that the covid vaccination epidemic was based on lies and distortions. For many this betrayal of trust is so profound that many engage in a sort of persistent denial, too afraid of the consequences that such a previously lauded institution could get it so badly wrong. We have seen previous pillars of the community fall into quick disrepute given their negligent, (or even intentional) abdication of the truth. It is very reasonable for many people to reject hitherto trusted sources given the latter’s wholesale abandonment of virtue, and intellectual rigour.

However, what is equally disturbing, if not more dangerous, is a growing trend to question the bedrock of those institutions, as if those foundations were themselves created from falsehoods. For example, there has been a shift away from Catholicism in Ireland, caused in large by the disgraceful conduct of men who said they were shepherds for God but were in fact, pied pipers for evil. A man ordained as a Catholic priest, for example, who committed the most heinous act upon an innocent child no more reflects accurately the priesthood than say, a person like Harold Shipmen being considered a sincere representation of general practitioners. Yet, people now associate the actions of men and women who acted contrary to the beliefs they warranted to profess, with the full accurate expression of those beliefs.

The evidence of betrayal is everywhere. 2005, for example, will go down in infamy in the scientific community.  What became known as the replication crisis, otherwise called the replicability or reproducibility crisis, it was a period of ongoing methodological crises in which it was established that the results of many scientific studies were difficult or impossible to reproduce. The reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, and such failures undermine the credibility of scientific knowledge. It is believed that the crisis emerged due to pressures placed on research laboratories to yield certain results, laboratories which were dependent on the continual receipt of essential but external funding, often from corporations with vested interests in the results. Funding for scientific studies is extremely competitive which leads to corruption and as a result, manipulation of data took place to engineer a favoured outcome. When scientific peers tried to reproduce the results, they were unable to do so and so the fraud was exposed. This continues to plague the community causing a lingering sentiment of distrust. However, just like the issue of religion and evil operatives within it, a crisis within science perpetuated by corrupt scientists does not render science itself obsolete or untrustworthy. Almost in every facet of human community you will find corruption and dishonest dealings. It is a sad reality that we can never truly eradicate, but we can mitigate against it with certain initiatives and safeguards.
The aphorism goes that’ nature abhors a vacuum’. Aristotle believed that nature contains no vacuums because the denser surrounding material continuum would immediately fill the rarity of an incipient void. Therefore, the void must be filled with something. We see this play out in politics quite frequently. If a political party falls from grace, there is always another party ready to take its place. The same happens to knowledge. The entire woke culture today is a result, I believe, of post modernism and constructiveness, born originally from elements of Marxism but one villain is carefully omitted from the charge, classical liberalism. Classical liberalism promoted the error that free and unabated societal dialogue should operate within, what they might term, a free marketplace of ideas which would allow the best ideas to win the day. This is false because it ignores the malleability of human psychology. Humans are as much influenced by emotional cues as rational ones. We have evidence of this in the billions of dollars spent every year on advertising that convinces people to buy goods many of us neither need nor truly want. It can also be evinced by the utterly reckless behaviour of constituents who vote against their own interest, believing vague bromides and pithy slogans of proven untrustworthy politicians. Even in nationalist circles there are nationalists ready to believe the mass media, a vehicle of inculcation they themselves detest, when it comes to their reasons for abandoning Catholicism. Rarely, if never, do these patriots ask themselves to question the source of their own hostility towards the faith of their fathers. Invariably but not always, upon closer inspection, the cause is explainable by recourse to heavily media infused criticisms and antipathy of thefaith, being duped into confusing a man acting contrary to faith, a child molester, with the faith itself that would unapologetically rebuke such a heinous crime. There is no dogma that lauds the despicable after all, no ecclesiastical discipline that promotes the desiderata of child molestation. Yet people believe this fallacy. The patriots themselves therefore become unwittingly pawns of the very propaganda machine they revile.
Lately, I have seen an attack on not just Catholicism but Christianity itself. The sources for these attacks lay, invariably are located on the internet. An example of such an attack goes as follows. In Egypt the people worshiped the sun, and they called it the great God, O Cyrus. On the altars of Egypt were round sun shaped wafers made of unleavened bread. Egyptian priests would pray over the little wafers to make them holy. Then they told the people that a miracle had happened. They claim that the wafers had turned into the flesh of the sun God, O Cyrus. Later the sources go on to claim that the letters IHS are imprinted on the bread. The assertion is that the letters IHS, are actually a reference to the Egyptian gods; Isis, Horus and Seb.
This is balderdash. There is absolutely no evidence that ancient Egyptians believed in a doctrine of transubstantiation like Catholics or orthodox Christians do. Also, on the host, IHS obviously does not stand for Isis, Horus and Seb. Other gullible people posit that the lettering stands for in hoc signo, or, ‘not under this banner, we will conquer’, supposedly tying the creation of the Catholic church with Constantine. Where it actually derives from is the first three Greek letters of Jesus’s name when they’re capitalized.
Another internet theory that gained traction concerned the life of Jesus, that it was stolen from Egyptian mythology. The claim goes the story of the Egyptian god Horus is the same as that of Jesus, that Horus was crucified and he rose from the dead and he had 12 disciples, that the story of Jesus is, in fact stolen from Horus. To the disappointment of those who disseminate this claim, the fact remains that Horus was not crucified. He also did not have 12 disciples. Any other similarities are paper thin.
A lot of the misinformation that abounds online is attributed to tracts like that penned by anti-Catholic Jack Chick or to book called ‘The Two Babylons’ written by Alexander Hislop back in the 19th century, the latter claiming all Catholic worship comes from ancient Babylonian religion. The problem with both Chick and Hislop’s work is that their scholarship is, shoddy, it is replete with errors. One protestant writer, Ralph Woodward wrote a reply book, called ‘Babylon Mystery Religion’. Woodward first agreed with Hislop, but then admitted, after some erudite scrutiny, that his own supporting thesis was factually wrong.

So far, I have mentioned how both followers of religion and science can fall into error, especially when there is a climate of trust pervading. The same is occurring with law and the sovereign citizen or freeman movement. Unfortunately, much like almost everything novel, it originates in the United States of America.
This phenomenon goes under different names in various jurisdictions. In the United States these ideas were incubated in a succession of marginalised and predominately rural political groups: the Posse Comitatus, Christian Identity churches, Tax Protestors, Militias, and the Sovereign Citizen movement. The movement has now extended to urban United States black populations, who self-identify as Moors or Aboriginal peoples, and claim immunity or special status on the basis of race. The movement has also extended to Freemen-on-the-Land, a collection of Canadian, politically leftist, “Green,” anti-globalization, marijuana advocacy, and anti-government social activists who “optout” of government control.

The “Sovereign citizen” is understood as a catchall phrase referring to a variety of anti-government individuals and groups who share some common beliefs and behaviours. The organizations to which many sovereign citizens belong have a variety of names from Moorish Nation, The Aware Group, Washitaw Nation, the North Carolina American Republic, Republic of United States of America, etc. The same views may also be known or embraced as Freeman, Freemen on the Land etc. The overwhelming nature of this movement is their adherence to a view that the existing governmental structure, including the courts and law enforcement, is illegitimate and that they, the sovereign citizens, retain an individual common law identity exempting them from the authority of those fraudulent government institutions.
Government, law enforcement, as well as the courts in many countries around the world, Australia, Canada, Britain and Ireland, now regularly encounter persons who claim to possess extraordinary authority and immunity under a broad category of organised pseudo legal theories and claims. The claims made by the sovereign movement are purportedly expressions of legal rights and principles, but this “law” is not drawn from recognized sources. Instead, these are an alternative or a different set of rules that mimic or ape the structure and language of “conventional” law. This variant of law is known to academics and now the courts as, “pseudo law”. The “pseudo law” superficially appears to be law, or related to law, but is otherwise spurious and contains many misunderstandings of the substance, procedure of law, but also the underlying jurisprudential foundations of legal systems.

It is important at this juncture to recognise that this development of “pseudo law” is a consequence, largely of distrust of, hitherto trusted institutions, and the distrust is entirely valid. Nevertheless, the approach taken is actually counter productive to eliminating mass corruption in society.

The original sovereign movement emerged from a belief that when the federal government abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s it substituted its citizens as collateral for the country’s debts by pledging each citizen’s future earnings to foreign investors. As with all other aspects of sovereign ideology, the details can vary considerably, but generally the explanation for how this happens is that a secret United States Treasury account is set up for each citizen at birth, some large sum of money placed in it or pledged to it, ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars — $630,000 is a common number — to millions depending on which sovereign citizen group’s version you come across. Consequently, according to their theory, two separate identities are created.
The corporate shell account, the one pledged as security, is the “strawman” to which sovereign citizens refer and, in their view, is separate and distinct from their true flesh and blood identity. In sovereign citizens’ view, the government-controlled and enslaved strawman is evidenced by documents showing the person’s name in all capital letters. Birth certificates, social security cards, driver’s licenses, tax forms, etc., apparently represent only the shell corporate identity (or the strawman) simply because they are written in all caps. A sovereign citizen will assert inadvertent subjection to this false government, and will avoid being mistaken for a federal citizen by signing documents in a certain manner — for example, by identifying oneself as “John Doe, Executive Trustee for the Private Contract Trust known as JOHN DOE” or by identifying oneself as executor for the strawman, or using a copyright symbol with the name, or saying “John Doe, Secured Party, Authorized Representative, Attorney-in-Fact in behalf of JOHN DOE ©,” or interspersing colons or hyphens or other odd punctuation in the name, or using the prefix “Noble” or the suffix “Bey” or “El Bey” with one’s name and so on.
At the very heart of the freemen constitutional framework is the idea that there is a fundamental distinction to be drawn between a natural man or woman and a corporation. Much of the thesis for the movement is found in a form of apophenia or seeing unconnected patterns, especially when it comes to the formation of language. Nouns like ‘parent’ or ‘par-ent’, for example, is to be deciphered, exposed from beneath its nefarious veil to be really translated as “pair to rent”. However, this is a distortion of the true etymology of the word (the word ‘parent’ derives from the Latin infinitive parere, or to bring forth). According to the sovereign being movement when parents register the birth of a child, they are entering a contract with the State to ‘sign over the legal title of the baby’. This is the point in time when the child becomes what is referred to as a ‘strawman’, a mere fictitious legal entity owned by the State and used as collateral in commercial transactions.

Freemen also believe that men and women are able to choose which ‘law form’ they operate under. This situation is thought to be derived from clause 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (a provision omitted from later reissues of the charter).
Justice Hogan of the IRISH Courts has described the phenomenon as thus,
“It is, I think, a measure of the desperate straits in which some litigants have found themselves as a result of the collapse in the property market from 2008 onwards that arguments of this kind have been seriously advanced, not only in this case but in other recent cases of the same kind, both here and in other jurisdictions…”
In Freeman v. Bank of Scotland, Justice Gilligan held that such arguments are “frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail”.
Often described by the Courts as impenetrable, gibberish, or nonsense, such derogatory labels tend only to compound in the mind of “sovereign citizens”, that the government, or their agents, are attempting to avoid the truth.
Academics however have attempted to distil the misconceptions that arise from the pseudo law and understand it as discrete legal error whereby the “pseudo law” takes an alternative segue from “conventional” law, and thus, reaches a different result. These forks in the law are not always incomprehensible but just simply wrong, at least from the perspective of conventional authorities and the courts. However, this is where the courts fail. By categorising these bogus claims as emergent from “unconventional” authorities or that they are disconnected from “mainstream” law, it provides the sovereign citizen with further proof of a governmental cover up. The Courts have yet to recognise that the issue is founded upon genuine and reasonable distrust of institutions that have been plagued with cronyism and bias in favour of powerful interests.
The sovereign citizen or Freemen tend to dismiss the constitutional consensus and the legal system as a deception, one perpetrated on a large scale. Again, it is understandable why reasonable people have gone down this pathway given the extraordinary distrust of hitherto trustworthy institutions.
Sovereign citizens, or freemen, assert that they are not bound by legislation or commercial law unless they consent. What might be considered lawful demands for example, for payment, to appear in court, to complete the census etc., are merely invitations that may be declined in the minds of Freemen at least.
To provide an example of “pseudo law” we can take the legal maxim qui non negat fatetur or ‘who does not deny, admits’. According to some pseudo lawyers this maxim can be used to reject a duty to perform under a contract. This is of course, incorrect. In the law of contract, silence does not mean consent. A contract cannot be “foisted” on a target simply because someone remains silent, for if the maxim applied then we would otherwise be surrounded by potentially binding legal agreements that one would need to identify and rebut via incessant vigilance.
In reply, the sovereign citizen will refer to Black’s law dictionary as evidence of its existence. However, a closer look at Black’s Law Dictionary provides the explanation. The full quotation is QUI NON NEGAT FATETUR. He who does not deny, admits. A well-known rule of pleading. Tray. Lat. Max. 503.39
The omission of the full meaning and application of the maxim exemplifies the errors of the sovereign citizen movement. The Qui non negat fatetur rule has nothing whatsoever, to do with contracts, but instead guides how a court should interpret lawsuit pleadings, such as a statement of defence. The maxim is not false but has been misapplied.
Fiona Gartland of the Irish Times describes the “Freeman on the land” movement as one of a number of philosophies which has “sprung up” in recent years stating,
“To hold yourself out as knowing some kind of secret formula and something about the legal system and then to take a vulnerable person who is facing losing their home or getting a judgment against them and to purport to tell them how they can conduct themselves in court is an appalling thing.”
What Gartland, as part of the establishment, omits however is that many good people are so disillusioned with the corruption of the “mainstream” or the “conventional” schemas, that they feel compelled to seek justice outside the system.
The Courts do however recognise that most often the litigant has indeed a valid point of law to argue hidden among the convoluted language presented to the court. For this reason, the courts have been cautious to dismiss off hand any Freemen litigant. However, where a legitimate legal argument succeeds, the courts are careful to point out that it is that argument which has succeeded and not any “Freemen” style argument.
These are extraordinary times we are living in, and they come with a heavy price. Distrust and disillusionment are, admittedly, omnipresent, but this is a time to keep cool heads, to remain steadfast to the truth. By trespassing into areas that may seem, on their face, fertile, those decisions loosely made can cause the opposite effect and ensure our definite retreat. We as nationalists, by representing ourselves in ways that will alienate the majority from our cause, in ways that will be weaponised by the establishment to provide evidence to that majority of our irrationalism, will render our journey to ultimate freedom curtailed if not fatally damaged. For what better way, after all, to destroy any resistance to the present tyranny but to be made look so foolish by those inside our ranks who espouse the absurd, either through well-meaning ignorance, pride or deceit, and in the process their activities will do more to alienate those so ready to join our ranks than the opposition they, the proponents of the absurd, allegedly but rightfully, contest.