Freeman-on-the-Land walks out of his own trial, claims it isn’t him being accused

The bizarre anti-government Freeman-on-the-Land movement establishing itself in Canada reached a new low this week when a Prince Edward Island man stood up and walked out of court while facing charges of endangering the public.

John James MacLean, 55, claimed Canadian law did not apply to him when he alleged caused a highway vehicle collision, fled the scene and led police on a high-speed chase that eventually resulted in his arrest.

According to the Guardian, MacLean refused to identify himself with the name on the charge sheet, claiming it was just a title issued to him on government documents. He eventually left the court, stating his business was done there, and was later found guilty of dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and evading police.

Here is the how the incident is described by the Guardian:

The Freeman-on-the-Land movement believes that they do not have to adhere to any government laws or rules that they do not agree with. The movement began in the United States about four decades ago, and expanded to Canada more recently.

The FBI considers the Freeman movement, or sovereign-citizen extremists, a domestic terrorist movement. And the B.C. Law Society warned lawyers and notaries about dealing with members of movement due to their tendency to rely on bogus documents, file frivolous lawsuit and revel in pseudo-legality.

A notice states, "They further believe that law only governs them if they choose or consent to be governed. By implication, they believe that, by not consenting, they can hold themselves independent of government jurisdiction."

In other words, Freemen are like that kid playing tag who calls time out right before he is caught. They hide behind pseudo-legality while ignoring any laws to which they don’t want to adhere. There are believed to be as many as 30,000 self-described Freemen in Canada and hundreds of thousands more in the U.S.

While the claim is most commonly used to negate the need for driver's licences, gun permits and other government documents, it has also been invoked to avoid paying taxes, committing bank fraud and evading other responsibilities.

In Alberta, a Freeman was recently evicted after renting a woman's duplex and then declaring it an embassy and refusing to vacate or pay rent. The same Freeman had previously reported to have left Quebec while facing charges after a landlady was thrown down the stairs.

As odd or off-base as the movement seems, it was established on an ideology that could be argued were once noble and principled.

According to the FBI’s bulletin, the prevalent sovereign-citizen theory is that “the U.S. government went bankrupt when it abandoned the gold standard basis for currency in 1933 and began using citizens as collateral in trade agreements with foreign governments.”

The conclusion being that the government lost the moral high ground. But where is the high ground in willfully causing injury to others, or the destruction of their belongings?