Untitled Document

COMMON LAW COURTS - UNCOMMON AND UNCOURTLY
Public Information Editorial Board
of the State Bar of South Dakota

For several weeks the spring of 1996 national attention was drawn to Garfield County, Montana. A small group calling themselves "Freemen" were engaged there in an armed standoff with state and federal authorities who sought to arrest several members of the group for a variety of state and federal charges. These "Freemen" are also loosely associated with a phenomena known as the "common law courts" movement.

The siege ended June 13, 1996, when twelve "Freemen" surrendered to federal authorities to face a variety of state and federal charges. This article attempts to answer the following questions.

Who are the "Freemen?" What is the "common law courts" movement? Do their beliefs about government make any sense?

In January 1993, several "Freemen" demanded that the county attorney of Garfield County, Montana, prosecute the county director of the Farmers Home Administration for fraud. He found no basis and refused. In response, 36 Garfield County "Freemen" conducted an armed seizure of the Garfield County Courthouse and set up a so-called "Supreme Court of Garfield/Comitatus." Their so-called "Supreme Court" attempted to issue writs of attachment against property of a local judge and several lawyers. They also held proceedings designed to preempt an expected state court ruling in a divorce case scheduled for the following day. Two months later, the "Freemen" issued a $1 million bounty for the county attorney, the sheriff, the district court judge, a lawyer, and two bank officials. The county attorney filed criminal charges against fifteen individuals involved in the courthouse seizure. The charges included armed robbery, felony assault, and threatening public officials.

On July 15, 1994, the Garfield County "Freemen" mailed messages to the local jury panel who had been called to hear the trial of several of the "Freemen" for the courthouse takeover. The letters threatened the jurors and their property if they convicted any of the "Freemen" defendants.

The threats failed. Garfield County juries convicted seven "Freemen" for the courthouse seizure anyway. The remaining eight "Freemen" refused to appear for trial. These remaining "Freemen" became heavily armed and threatened violent resistance if the Garfield County Sheriff tried to arrest any of them.

The Garfield County Sheriff, who has only one deputy, requested help from the State of Montana and the federal government. On September 28, 1995, at least ten "Freemen," including those wanted by the sheriff, barricaded themselves in houses on a five-square-mile tract of land in Garfield County, and made it clear that any attempt to arrest them would result in violence. The result was the standoff which attracted national attention and ended June 13, 1996.

The Garfield County "Freemen" have, since January 1993, tried to take over Garfield County and set up their own government. They have created a court system they call a "common law court," loosely fashioned after the common law courts of ancient England. According to Garfield County Attorney Nick Murnion, "The Freemen believe the United States is a christian republic governed by biblically derived common law, not statutory law and certain people, including Jews and Blacks, are not eligible for membership." Murnion testified recently to the Subcommittee on Crime of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, that the "Freemen" appeal largely to unsuccessful farmers facing foreclosure. They believe that the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve System, and other federal agencies are controlled by a conspiracy which eventually will lead to a "one-world" government under the United Nations. The Garfield County "Freemen" attempt to legitimize their "courts" through intimidation. The so-called "Supreme Court of Garfield/Comitatus" has issued subpoenas for both of Montana's U.S. Senators, Montana's State Supreme Court Justices, the Montana Attorney General, and the Garfield County District Court, commanding these people to appear before a "grand jury" of "Freemen" and answer for unspecified "crimes."

The "Freemen" "common law courts" also intimidate by filing bogus "liens" against public officials who do not do their bidding. County Attorney Murnion has had $500 million in these so-called liens filed against him as a result of his refusal to prosecute the Farmers Home Administration director. The "Freemen" have offered a $1 million reward for the arrest of the local sheriff, a judge, County Attorney Murnion, a lawyer, and two bankers. The Garfield County Sheriff asked if he could collect the reward by turning himself in. He was told he would probably be found guilty and be hanged so he wouldn't get to enjoy it.

This all took place in Garfield County, Montana, with less than 1,500 population and total law enforcement of one sheriff and one deputy. However, neither the "Freemen" nor "common law courts" are isolated to Garfield County, Montana. For several months prior to the standoff the Garfield County "Freemen" were exporting their brand of self-government. They conducted classes for about two dozen out-of-state individuals per week, teaching them how to set up their own "common law courts" in other states. They also instructed on how to file liens against public officials as retaliation or intimidation, suggesting the added benefit that the lienholder might receive millions of dollars as a result. Groups similar to the Garfield County "Freemen" have surfaced in some form in Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and South Dakota. The typical South Dakota "Freeman" is usually a farmer or rancher in financial difficulty. He will file with public officials documents appearing to be Uniform Commercial Code financing statements and attempt to place liens for several hundred million dollars against the financial institutions, the lawyers, or the judges involved in his foreclosure. He may then attempt to spend the funds supposedly created by the lien. He will create a document which looks like a check or money order and remit it to the lending institution in payment of his debt. He will then take his foreclosure to a "common law court" composed of his friends. The "court" will declare the debt paid and also criminally charge the lending institution, judges, or attorneys for failing to acknowledge payment of the debt.

In South Dakota, and many other states, followers of the "common law court" movement have also declared themselves "sovereign citizens" or "Freemen." They believe that by renouncing their United States citizenship they have no further obligation to obey federal law. As a result, several "Freemen" nationwide have ignored the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. South Dakota "Freemen" are no exception. South Dakota "Freemen" have attempted to pay their real estate taxes, their real estate debts, debts to the State of South Dakota, federal taxes, filing fees, and various personal obligations by use of these bogus warrants or money orders. As a result, several South Dakota "Freemen" have been charged and convicted in state and federal court. Darrell Link of Delmont, South Dakota (rural Charles Mix County), has been convicted in state court of multiple counts of selling mortgaged property. He received a state penitentiary sentence of two years. Link has also been convicted in federal court of bankruptcy fraud. He has not yet been sentenced on his federal conviction. Leroy Sveeggen of Alcester, South Dakota, and Francis Rhoads of Forestburg, South Dakota, are both awaiting trial on federal charges stemming from issuance of bogus checks. Jerome Schiefen of Hudson, South Dakota, caused "common law court" documents to be delivered to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol. The documents threatened Judge Piersol for ordering foreclosure on Schiefen's farm. An accompanying "Notice of Treason" declared the punishment for treason to be the death penalty. As a result, Schiefen has been convicted of threatening a U.S. district court judge. He is currently in the custody of the U.S. Marshall awaiting sentencing. Federal warrants are outstanding for other South Dakota "Freemen" for similar crimes.

These "Freemen" apparently base their "common law courts" upon provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Bible, the Magna Carta, their view of English common law, and the Uniform Commercial Code. They apparently believe that the U.S. Constitution places exclusive jurisdiction in common law courts. "Freemen" select their own judges and juries from among their friends. The adherents of common law courts misread and misapply the history of the American legal system. The phrase "common law" usually refers to "the common law of England." The history of the common law parallels the history of government itself. The common law began from the need to prevent or discourage feuding or vengeance. The local tribe or village would regularly assemble to discuss matters of general concern and arrange for the use of communal property and dispense justice. They would also try to resolve feuds. The phrase "blood-money" is a word of ancient origin. It represents a payment by one party to the other imposed by local authorities to end the feud. Similar problems tended to be dealt with in the same way and customary practices developed. The basis of common law is, therefore, custom.

The enforcement of the common law, however, has historically been the responsibility of the King. The entire system of English justice was established by and administered through the King. As early as 939 A.D., the King divided England into "shires" or counties. These divisions allowed the King to more efficiently keep order and collect taxes. The King appointed a representative in each shire, who was called a "reeve." Hence, the King's representative was the "shire-reeve" or eventually "sheriff." Early sheriffs collected taxes, performed general governmental functions, resolved disputes between citizens, and kept the peace. Justice and law enforcement were the responsibility of the King. By 1118 A.D., Judge Glanvill, on behalf of King Henry II, organized the English law of "writs," that is, instruments which initiate lawsuits in the King's courts and outline their remedies. These writs are the beginning of the "common law" of 12th Century England.

The common law of England developed after the enactment of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. Prior to the Magna Carta, England had two types of courts. One was the court of "common pleas," a court for private litigants, that is, disputes in which the King had no interest. The other was the King's Court, or criminal court, where persons were tried and punished for criminal conduct. Both courts were served by judges appointed by the King. The adoption of the Magna Carta began the transition in England to representative government. The Crown gave up increasingly more power over the next several centuries to the Parliament of England. In the meantime the courts, continually operated by representatives of the King, continued to make decisions and dispense justice. The law imposed by these courts initially came from the King's decrees or laws passed by Parliament. In the absence of royal edict or parliamentary statute to govern any situation the courts imposed judgment based upon custom. It was this establishment of custom over centuries in the absence of specific statutes by the Parliament which evolved into the "common law."

Application of the "common law" has not changed since the 12th Century. Today, "Law is a rule of property and of conduct prescribed by the sovereign power." SDCL 1-1-22.

In order to find South Dakota law one looks to:

1. The United States Constitution;

2. United States Treaties;

3. United States statutes;

4. The South Dakota Constitution;

5. Statutes of the South Dakota Legislature;

6. South Dakota statutes adopted by the voters;

7. Ordinances of local government (cities and counties); and,

8. Court rules and administrative rules adopted by boards, commissions and officers of this State having authority to do so.

SDCL 1-1-23. The "common law" still applies in South Dakota, but only if one of the above sources does not cover the question. SDCL 1-1-24. That situation rarely develops.

The administration of justice and law enforcement in the United States and South Dakota is the responsibility of government. Laws are written by the people through their elected representatives to city councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and the United States Congress. None of us have the individual right to make up our own law. Nothing in the history of the English common law gives the Garfield County "Freemen" the right to take over the county by force; or to create courts staffed by self-appointed judges; or to write their own rules of conduct.

The essence of representative democratic government in the United States and England is that laws are made and enforced by elected representatives of the public. Publicly elected legislators, commissioners and councilmen write the laws. Other elected representatives (sheriffs, prosecutors, mayors, governors) enforce the laws. Elected and appointed judges interpret the law and settle disputes. The "Freemen" of Garfield County have reverted to the practice of vengeance. They are legally and historically wrong.

The foregoing article represents the views and opinions of the Public Information Editorial Board of the State Bar of South Dakota but is not the official position of the State Bar nor any of its members. The Editorial Board acknowledges the research and drafting contribution of Lawrence Long.

Freedom Domain
........

	COMMON LAW COURTS - UNCOMMON AND UNCOURTLY Public Information Editorial Board of the State Bar of South Dakota For several weeks the spring of 1996 national attention was drawn to Garfield County, Montana. A small group calling themselves "Freemen" were engaged there in an armed standoff with state and federal authorities who sought to arrest several members of the group for a variety of state and federal charges. These "Freemen" are also loosely associated with a phenomena known as the "common law courts" movement. The siege ended June 13, 1996, when twelve "Freemen" surrendered to federal authorities to face a variety of state and federal charges. This article attempts to answer the following questions. Who are the "Freemen?" What is the "common law courts" movement? Do their beliefs about government make any sense? In January 1993, several "Freemen" demanded that the county attorney of Garfield County, Montana, prosecute the county director of the Farmers Home Administration for fraud. He found no basis and refused. In response, 36 Garfield County "Freemen" conducted an armed seizure of the Garfield County Courthouse and set up a so-called "Supreme Court of Garfield/Comitatus." Their so-called "Supreme Court" attempted to issue writs of attachment against property of a local judge and several lawyers. They also held proceedings designed to preempt an expected state court ruling in a divorce case scheduled for the following day. Two months later, the "Freemen" issued a $1 million bounty for the county attorney, the sheriff, the district court judge, a lawyer, and two bank officials. The county attorney filed criminal charges against fifteen individuals involved in the courthouse seizure. The charges included armed robbery, felony assault, and threatening public officials. On July 15, 1994, the Garfield County "Freemen" mailed messages to the local jury panel who had been called to hear the trial of several of the "Freemen" for the courthouse takeover. The letters threatened the jurors and their property if they convicted any of the "Freemen" defendants. The threats failed. Garfield County juries convicted seven "Freemen" for the courthouse seizure anyway. The remaining eight "Freemen" refused to appear for trial. These remaining "Freemen" became heavily armed and threatened violent resistance if the Garfield County Sheriff tried to arrest any of them. The Garfield County Sheriff, who has only one deputy, requested help from the State of Montana and the federal government. On September 28, 1995, at least ten "Freemen," including those wanted by the sheriff, barricaded themselves in houses on a five-square-mile tract of land in Garfield County, and made it clear that any attempt to arrest them would result in violence. The result was the standoff which attracted national attention and ended June 13, 1996. The Garfield County "Freemen" have, since January 1993, tried to take over Garfield County and set up their own government. They have created a court system they call a "common law court," loosely fashioned after the common law courts of ancient England. According to Garfield County Attorney Nick Murnion, "The Freemen believe the United States is a christian republic governed by biblically derived common law, not statutory law and certain people, including Jews and Blacks, are not eligible for membership." Murnion testified recently to the Subcommittee on Crime of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, that the "Freemen" appeal largely to unsuccessful farmers facing foreclosure. They believe that the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve System, and other federal agencies are controlled by a conspiracy which eventually will lead to a "one-world" government under the United Nations. The Garfield County "Freemen" attempt to legitimize their "courts" through intimidation. The so-called "Supreme Court of Garfield/Comitatus" has issued subpoenas for both of Montana's U.S. Senators, Montana's State Supreme Court Justices, the Montana Attorney General, and the Garfield County District Court, commanding these people to appear before a "grand jury" of "Freemen" and answer for unspecified "crimes." The "Freemen" "common law courts" also intimidate by filing bogus "liens" against public officials who do not do their bidding. County Attorney Murnion has had $500 million in these so-called liens filed against him as a result of his refusal to prosecute the Farmers Home Administration director. The "Freemen" have offered a $1 million reward for the arrest of the local sheriff, a judge, County Attorney Murnion, a lawyer, and two bankers. The Garfield County Sheriff asked if he could collect the reward by turning himself in. He was told he would probably be found guilty and be hanged so he wouldn't get to enjoy it. This all took place in Garfield County, Montana, with less than 1,500 population and total law enforcement of one sheriff and one deputy. However, neither the "Freemen" nor "common law courts" are isolated to Garfield County, Montana. For several months prior to the standoff the Garfield County "Freemen" were exporting their brand of self-government. They conducted classes for about two dozen out-of-state individuals per week, teaching them how to set up their own "common law courts" in other states. They also instructed on how to file liens against public officials as retaliation or intimidation, suggesting the added benefit that the lienholder might receive millions of dollars as a result. Groups similar to the Garfield County "Freemen" have surfaced in some form in Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and South Dakota. The typical South Dakota "Freeman" is usually a farmer or rancher in financial difficulty. He will file with public officials documents appearing to be Uniform Commercial Code financing statements and attempt to place liens for several hundred million dollars against the financial institutions, the lawyers, or the judges involved in his foreclosure. He may then attempt to spend the funds supposedly created by the lien. He will create a document which looks like a check or money order and remit it to the lending institution in payment of his debt. He will then take his foreclosure to a "common law court" composed of his friends. The "court" will declare the debt paid and also criminally charge the lending institution, judges, or attorneys for failing to acknowledge payment of the debt. In South Dakota, and many other states, followers of the "common law court" movement have also declared themselves "sovereign citizens" or "Freemen." They believe that by renouncing their United States citizenship they have no further obligation to obey federal law. As a result, several "Freemen" nationwide have ignored the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. South Dakota "Freemen" are no exception. South Dakota "Freemen" have attempted to pay their real estate taxes, their real estate debts, debts to the State of South Dakota, federal taxes, filing fees, and various personal obligations by use of these bogus warrants or money orders. As a result, several South Dakota "Freemen" have been charged and convicted in state and federal court. Darrell Link of Delmont, South Dakota (rural Charles Mix County), has been convicted in state court of multiple counts of selling mortgaged property. He received a state penitentiary sentence of two years. Link has also been convicted in federal court of bankruptcy fraud. He has not yet been sentenced on his federal conviction. Leroy Sveeggen of Alcester, South Dakota, and Francis Rhoads of Forestburg, South Dakota, are both awaiting trial on federal charges stemming from issuance of bogus checks. Jerome Schiefen of Hudson, South Dakota, caused "common law court" documents to be delivered to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol. The documents threatened Judge Piersol for ordering foreclosure on Schiefen's farm. An accompanying "Notice of Treason" declared the punishment for treason to be the death penalty. As a result, Schiefen has been convicted of threatening a U.S. district court judge. He is currently in the custody of the U.S. Marshall awaiting sentencing. Federal warrants are outstanding for other South Dakota "Freemen" for similar crimes. These "Freemen" apparently base their "common law courts" upon provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Bible, the Magna Carta, their view of English common law, and the Uniform Commercial Code. They apparently believe that the U.S. Constitution places exclusive jurisdiction in common law courts. "Freemen" select their own judges and juries from among their friends. The adherents of common law courts misread and misapply the history of the American legal system. The phrase "common law" usually refers to "the common law of England." The history of the common law parallels the history of government itself. The common law began from the need to prevent or discourage feuding or vengeance. The local tribe or village would regularly assemble to discuss matters of general concern and arrange for the use of communal property and dispense justice. They would also try to resolve feuds. The phrase "blood-money" is a word of ancient origin. It represents a payment by one party to the other imposed by local authorities to end the feud. Similar problems tended to be dealt with in the same way and customary practices developed. The basis of common law is, therefore, custom. The enforcement of the common law, however, has historically been the responsibility of the King. The entire system of English justice was established by and administered through the King. As early as 939 A.D., the King divided England into "shires" or counties. These divisions allowed the King to more efficiently keep order and collect taxes. The King appointed a representative in each shire, who was called a "reeve." Hence, the King's representative was the "shire-reeve" or eventually "sheriff." Early sheriffs collected taxes, performed general governmental functions, resolved disputes between citizens, and kept the peace. Justice and law enforcement were the responsibility of the King. By 1118 A.D., Judge Glanvill, on behalf of King Henry II, organized the English law of "writs," that is, instruments which initiate lawsuits in the King's courts and outline their remedies. These writs are the beginning of the "common law" of 12th Century England. The common law of England developed after the enactment of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. Prior to the Magna Carta, England had two types of courts. One was the court of "common pleas," a court for private litigants, that is, disputes in which the King had no interest. The other was the King's Court, or criminal court, where persons were tried and punished for criminal conduct. Both courts were served by judges appointed by the King. The adoption of the Magna Carta began the transition in England to representative government. The Crown gave up increasingly more power over the next several centuries to the Parliament of England. In the meantime the courts, continually operated by representatives of the King, continued to make decisions and dispense justice. The law imposed by these courts initially came from the King's decrees or laws passed by Parliament. In the absence of royal edict or parliamentary statute to govern any situation the courts imposed judgment based upon custom. It was this establishment of custom over centuries in the absence of specific statutes by the Parliament which evolved into the "common law." Application of the "common law" has not changed since the 12th Century. Today, "Law is a rule of property and of conduct prescribed by the sovereign power." SDCL 1-1-22. In order to find South Dakota law one looks to: 1. The United States Constitution; 2. United States Treaties; 3. United States statutes; 4. The South Dakota Constitution; 5. Statutes of the South Dakota Legislature; 6. South Dakota statutes adopted by the voters; 7. Ordinances of local government (cities and counties); and, 8. Court rules and administrative rules adopted by boards, commissions and officers of this State having authority to do so. SDCL 1-1-23. The "common law" still applies in South Dakota, but only if one of the above sources does not cover the question. SDCL 1-1-24. That situation rarely develops. The administration of justice and law enforcement in the United States and South Dakota is the responsibility of government. Laws are written by the people through their elected representatives to city councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and the United States Congress. None of us have the individual right to make up our own law. Nothing in the history of the English common law gives the Garfield County "Freemen" the right to take over the county by force; or to create courts staffed by self-appointed judges; or to write their own rules of conduct. The essence of representative democratic government in the United States and England is that laws are made and enforced by elected representatives of the public. Publicly elected legislators, commissioners and councilmen write the laws. Other elected representatives (sheriffs, prosecutors, mayors, governors) enforce the laws. Elected and appointed judges interpret the law and settle disputes. The "Freemen" of Garfield County have reverted to the practice of vengeance. They are legally and historically wrong. The foregoing article represents the views and opinions of the Public Information Editorial Board of the State Bar of South Dakota but is not the official position of the State Bar nor any of its members. The Editorial Board acknowledges the research and drafting contribution of Lawrence Long.

COMMON LAW COURTS - UNCOMMON AND UNCOURTLY Public Information Editorial Board of the State Bar of South Dakota

COMMON LAW COURTS - UNCOMMON AND UNCOURTLY
Public Information Editorial Board
of the State Bar of South Dakota