The case of the Calgary Freeman on the land Andreas Pirelli, who declared his rented property a sovereign embassy, is both hilarious and sad. Funny in that it involves a comically delusional dickhead whose bizarre understanding of contract law and massively misinformed personal philosophy led him to violate his lease with the owner of the property on the grounds that he had claimed the duplex as his sovereign territory. He later attempted to bill the landlady for the “improvements” he had made to the house, by means of an invoice issued by his phony corporation.

Fortunately, the real law doesn’t recognize ridiculous crackpot legal theories as a defense and the man was evicted. It transpires, this particular jack ass has a history of this kind of behaviour, including an assault charge against him for an incident involving a former landlady in Montreal.

For those who don’t know about the spectacular lies of the Freeman-on-the-land movement, I invite you to visit Wikipedia to learn more about their conspiratorial beliefs. Basically, If I can oversimplify their childish theories, these folks try to shirk their legal obligations by claiming that there is a distinction between natural persons and their legal persons. While the latter is subject to all the laws you and I are because of their birth certificate ( wtf?!?) the former is not, because he (they’re almost invariably angry white males) has the status of a sovereign person or Freemen-on-the-land and doesn’t enter into contracts with the state or abide by its laws.

This has been used to justify all kinds of crazy stunts, such as driving without a license, stiffing your ex-wife on child support and, most alarmingly, keeping illegal firearms. Is it any wonder that the FBI consider them to be a terrorist organization?

Sad in that it represents a growing phenomenon of what one judge in Alberta charitably dubbed Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (OPCAs) in the case of what law nerds now regard as the legal equivalent of a cult classic of Canadian Jurisprudence. Meads vs. Meads was a more or less typical case of divorce, with an unusual twist: one of the litigants Mr. Meads was a so called Freeman-on-the-land (like our weirdo in Calgary) and refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court (or, for that matter, Canada) over him. 

In his wonderful opinion, the judge tried in vain to comprehend the logic of Mr. Meads. He also shed light on a major source of headaches and frivolous lawsuits for courts especially in Common Law countries. These idiots try to bring down the state, at great cost to the taxpayer and themselves, with a wide variety of invalid legal tactics and claims.

The one thing that all of these half-baked legal schemes seem to have in common is that they are promoted by self-styled legal gurus who sell their pseudo-legal crap online and at conferences. Meanwhile, the unsuspecting fools that lap up their nonsense make life miserable for legal professionals by contesting every aspect of the legal system.

It should be said that the arguments made by Freeman-on-the-land closely resemble those of their now mainstream and equally obnoxious political brethren the American Tea Party. In fact, the judge in Meads vs. Meads observed that “the memberships focus is strongly anti-government and has libertarian and right wing overtones. Christian rhetoric is common”.

Doesn’t it sound like he’s describing the current GOP and its leading dim bulbs in a nutshell? It’s downright scary to think that many of them support politicians like Republican congressmen and presidential hopeful (thank God he repudiated his Canadian citizenship) Ted Cruz in his quixotic quest to defund and destroy Obamacare. These people, whether tea baggers or Freeman on the landers, hate government and will do everything in their power to see it fail.

This post originally appeared on and is republished with permission from the author

Since Barack Obama won his second presidency back in November, a war has been brewing between Republicans and their Tea Party offspring. It is by no means a war between differing ideals or ideology, although they have their differences. It is more of a clash between Republicans who wish to see their party in power again and a Tea Party that borders on the line of stupidity and recklessness.

People seem to think the Tea Party was a grassroots uprising born out of the first election of Barack Obama, but in truth, the Tea Party was created a decade earlier by the tobacco industry and the Koch Brothers. Their goal was to instill an anti-tax, anti-science philosophy on politicians and the public with the hopes it would further line their pockets down the road.

The rise of Tea Party Republicans has led to a small exodus of moderate conservatives from the GOP. Those who have stayed have paid the price politically. “Normal” Republicans who don’t conform to Tea Party principles now get “primaried” by their Tea Party rivals and don’t even get on the ballot.

Tea Baggers now represent the extreme wing of their party. Their no science, no taxes (no intelligence) views are winning them primaries in their districts, but when it comes to actual elections the public is seeing them for who they are. Americans rejected many of them back in November, Todd Akin & Richard Mourdock “the rape guys” are just a couple. Even a once moderate Mitt Romney lost the presidency because of tea party influence.

Karl Rove

Enter Karl Rove. The longtime Republican strategist is by no means a moderate; his extremist views echo the same Tea Party he once held in high regard, the only difference is Rove likes to win. After his embarrassing loss in November along with his humiliating Fox News election night appearance, Karl is clamoring for a change.

Rove has founded the “Conservative Victory Project” super PAC that aims to fund the opposition to Tea Party crazies before their names appear on the ballot. His goal isn’t to have moderate Republicans take over the party per se; it’s simply to avoid nominating Republican candidates who don’t keep their mouth shut. As we all know, Tea Party candidates have a tough time zipping it up.

So is Rove’s new strategy going to work? Or will is simply split the party in two? So far, some Republicans have said that what he’s doing is counter-productive, that he needs to stay out of it and that his plan will backfire. Rove is also dependent on donations from Tea Party backed groups and corporations; who knows just how much funds he’ll be able to raise.

Whether Rove’s network is able to pick the winners remains to be seen. What we do know is that the Conservative Victory Project is making some Tea Party Republicans very angry as it goes against democratic principles. Voters, after all, should be the ones to decide (hey, the Tea Party got something right!).

A Republican civil war rests squarely in the hands of Karl Rove. If he decides to call off the dogs, no political bloodshed will be necessary. However, if goes through with his plans and they are met with success, we might just see a third party in future elections.

Tea Party website 2002

Personally, I don’t believe there is any cure for the Republican Party. They didn’t lose big last November just because of a few idiotic comments or running poor candidates, their loss was brought by sharing a common ideology that Americans rejected.

In effect, they lost pledging to the same philosophy pushed onto them by the Koch Brothers and the tobacco industry, viewpoints they have spent a decade trying to spread. Nearly all Republicans now subscribe to the Anti-environment, anti-abortion, anti-tax and pro-big business mantra, not just tea baggers.

So long as there are entities like the Kochs, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, those who profit from the spread of these beliefs, the GOP will be hindered at every turn, regardless of the actions of Karl Rove. Hopefully one day Tea Party supporters will realize just where their movement comes from and reject it themselves.