A burgeoning faction of Freemen are targeting Indigenous audiences in Australia 3 A taste of the subculture can be gleaned online, in groups such as the Tribal Sovereign Parliament of Gondwana Land, the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF) and the Original Sovereign Confederation.
The last of these repeats the now-familiar admiralty law myth on its Facebook page and urges members to carry an “Affidavit of Truth” outlining “their desired relationship with the colony known as Australia”. Another Facebook page – Vote ‘NO’ to Constitutional Change – claims that constitutional recognition of Aboriginal Australians is a trick to “surrender sovereignty”. Everything, it alleges, is a TROJAN Horse. The Recognise campaign’s “R” logo really stands for the Crown, as in “R v Defendant”. Welcome to Country ceremonies aren’t merely figurative but form “the only legal footing the Government have [sic] for so called Jurisdiction”. Native Title secretly means “Slave’s Title”, while a “traditional owner” is someone who has given up their property, at least in tenuous Latin cherrypicked from Black’s Law Dictionary.
The most quoted and influential Aboriginal Freeman guru is OSTF founder and travelling speaker Mark McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s beginnings weren’t in law or land-rights activism but panel beating. In 2002, he sued the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission for $33 million in damages after losing out on a business grant worth $35,000. His four-year suit was unsuccessful. In 2007, he sued a former friend over MONEY and property, losing again.
The following year, however, McMurtrie was shown on YouTube giving three-hour “common law” seminars. He parroted Freemen beliefs that names in capitals on birth certificates and power bills belonged to a fictional “corporate person” and not the “flesh-and-blood” natural person. Some of McMurtrie’s language was still broadly populist – “We the Australian people…” instead of “We the original sovereigns…” – and many of his early Freeman admirers were non-Indigenous.
Among them was “Peter-Andrew: Nolan©” a men’s rights activist who encourages men to fight rape charges with sovereign citizen tactics and bans women from reproducing his name without written permission in red ink. On his website Crimes Against Fathers, Nolan ranks McMurtrie among the “Great Australian Heros [sic]”.After founding the OSTF, McMurtrie remained close to non-Aboriginal Freemen.
In 2011 he joined forces with David Wynn Miller, an American guru claiming to teach “semantic” techniques for winning court cases, mostly involving quirky punctuation. The two unsuccessfully defended a client, Dr Masood Falamaki, in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. At one-point Miller argued that a court document counted as a “maritime vessel”, explaining, “All paper is a vessel in a sea of space and therefore it has to fly a vessel”. McMurtrie backed Miller, telling The Sydney Morning Herald: “As a sovereign tribal man of this continent, I view his ramblings as relevant to my people.”
His OSTF is currently partnered with a sovereign citizen outfit called the Truthology Foundation, which holds yearly “freedom summits”. These feature talks by Truthology’s creator Mark Darwin on “how you can operate privately outside the rules of such organisations like the ATO” and workshops by a “Mr X” on “successful techniques for negating and or waiving council fines, traffic infringements and tolls”.
McMurtrie’s tone in videos is earnest and sulky, never dazzling or glib. He’s believable enough as an activist, a grassroots tragic, and the OSTF doesn’t immediately appear distinct from the rest of the land rights movement. In early 2012, OSTF members joined the Canberra Tent Embassy for the well-publicised protests that cost Julia Gillard her shoe. On Sunrise, McMurtrie even appeared as a supposed embassy spokesman.
Later, surviving embassy founder Michael Anderson became suspicious of the OSTF’s non-Indigenous “legal advisers”. Over email, he distanced himself from McMurtrie, saying he “attempted to use the 40th celebration of the Embassy as a means to legitimise him and the OSTF”. Anderson had other concerns, too: “McMurtrie has been going around the country giving Aboriginal people his ‘Rebuttal’ to charges, but when the court rejects them McMurtrie is not around to advise how next to act.”
In 2013 a Yidindji man named Daniel Anning, convicted of car theft, appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland. He submitted a document titled “Notice of Rebuttal of Claim of Title to Land and Claim of Right”. It declared that the State of Queensland was a “private Corporation… registered in Washington DC” with no authority over “Private Natural People” and that Anning would not consent to a hearing “in any court other than a Yidindji Tribal Council of Elders Court or Common Law court de jure with a jury of 12 peers”. The document contained cryptic names that seemed to be cut and pasted from another case. Anning’s appeal was dismissed.
That same month, another Queensland court considered another “Notice of Rebuttal,” this time by a Nerissa Anderson, who gave her name as “Nerissa of the Ngadjon-Jii Tribe.” It was again dismissed. The following year Lee Anne Lacey attempted the same wthout success, and the same ideas were also attempted by Michael John Eckford shortly after.
Another Yidindji made news. Murrumu Walubara Yidindji – formerly NITV journalist Jeremy Geia – returned his passport, Medicare card and driver’s licence to the government. The licence had the “incorrect name”, he told The Guardian’s Paul Daley. Now he planned to “jump off the citizen ship, leave Australia”. He gave little clue what this meant, aside from a few Latin phrases.
His series of SoundCloud “message stick” recordings tell a fuller story. Murrumu’s last two recordings before “leaving Australia” (August 13 and 20) accept the influence of Mark McMurtrie (under his tribal alias, “Gunham Badi Jakamarra”) and decry the Recognise campaign as a plot by the “New World Order”. The state “to this day” doesn’t actually recognise Indigenous people as Australian citizens, Murrumu claims. As such, “Origines” are not subject to Commonwealth laws and (supposedly) cannot be tried by Australian judiciaries. Another message stick, from July 30, makes Murrumu’s Freeman beliefs plain: 4
“You see, what the Crown has actually done is created an offer of contract, that all stems from the birth certificate. […] Just look at the wording and the connection. Does Admiralty Law start when a woman’s water breaks? […] What about the birth canal? Is a contract created when a woman has her contractions? […] Who’s waiting at the end of the birth canal? Is it a doc(k), or a doctor? Don’t ships berth at the dock? There’s too many coincidences.”
There’s a problem beyond these word GAMES: the centuries-long erosion of trust and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. When part of a culture senses the court system is rigged against it, when a society has managed to make the terms “protection” and “child welfare” sound grim, then the OSTF mentality is partly understandable. Alienation begets anti-politics. Alienated people want explanations for the absurdism they feel around certain institutions; answers to why some professional fraternities give them the chills. Fantasies about tyrannical admiralty lawyers provide just that. They’re the opiate of the excluded. “Our tribes are sovereign” he tells cheering indigenous people at rallies:
“The legislation is entirely immaterial to us. We don’t give two shits what the crown thinks. We are not particularly concerned about their legislation other than the fact that they continue to use their blue coated bully boys to railroad us and to commit ethnic cleansing on behalf of this thing called crown corporation.”
Armed with his own treaties, he is telling dispossessed people what they want to hear:
“Not one piece of legislation of the crown has any authority over any person. If a court is going to exercise any of the powers attaching a right of ownership over me, forcing me to accept any right of punishment over me, then I will be addressing the matter from a point of view of slavery. They do not own me, they have no right to tell me anything.”
Mark McMurtrie had a string of cases of failed litigation, in McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & 6 Ors  NSWSC 781, McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors  NSWSC 1056, McMurtire v The Commonwealth & Ors  NSWSC 187, McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors  NSWSC 704, McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors  NSWSC 1147, McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia  NSWCA 148, McMurtrie & Anor v Calver & Anor  NSWSC 996 and McMurtrie v Calver (No 2)  NSWSC 375, which don’t seem to hold any OPCA contentions. He was subsequently mentioned in Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council  NSWCA 370 and Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki  NSWLEC 66 as an agent for one of the parties in the cases, in the latter with David Wynn Miller.
Mark McMurtrie is a perfect example of someone using misconceptions regarding aboriginal history to incite division among Australians. His theories circulated the internet with a premise that through some sort of “word magic” the term “ab-original” with a prefix “ab” means “not original”, and the term “in-di-genous” means “of no race”. Most dictionaries hold a different meaning, and tell the story how these words formed from the original Latin into French and English.
Origins of the term “ABORIGINAL”
“FROM THE BEGINNING” Aboriginal is a mid 19th century term, a back-formation from the 16th-century plural “Aborigines” meaning “Original inhabitants” (in classical times referring to those of Italy and Greece), from the Latin phrase “Ab Origine” meaning “From the beginning”. The term “Aborigine” actually has it’s beginnings in the folk etymology of the pre-Roman era, where it was first used as a tribal description of the “original inhabitants” of certain parts of Europe.
The “ABORIGINES” were in fact, the earliest inhabitants of central Italy, (and according to Roman legends, supposedly sons of the trees)
“They lived as nomads, without laws or fixed habitations, and their food was wild fruit. Their name is generally taken to mean ‘the original population’. When Aeneas arrived in Latium at the head of the Trojans the Aborigines were ruled by Latinus. Once they were united with the Trojans they formed the Latin race, so called in honor of Latinus.” ~ DICTIONARY OF CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY 5
The ABORIGINES or “original inhabitants” description of those people is likewise identical to the ABORIGINES or “original inhabitants” of this landmass, and since it was millenia prior to the colonisation of this landmass by the British, how can such a term be conspiritorial, with some secret hidden meaning that implies the opposite…??
It’s extremely doubtful that the scribes interpreting the word “ABORIGINE” from Old Latin into Old Greek over 2000 years had any intention of any opposite, different interpretation.
“AB” prefix… 6 1. a formal element occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “away from”.
By my understanding, this combination of words meant to mean “From the beginning” beginning in “origine” with the prefix “ab” would be more like “Away from the beginning” in that sense, but still pertaining to the implied meaning.
AB… From Old English æf, from Latin ab-, from Ancient Greek πό (apó, “from”), from Sanskritअप (ápa, “away”). See Proto-Indo-European *apo-.
The “ab” prefix can signify “FROM” or “OF” (as in aboriginal, absorb abinitio, abantiquo etc) OR… “AWAY”, a separating, or departure from (as in abduct, abstract, abscond, abnormal, abaxial, abdicate, abolition, etc)
But in the sense of the word “AB-ORIGINE” even if the meaning was hypothetically taken from the second definition, if would still be an “AWAY FROM” (a separating or a departure from) the postfix “ORIGINE”, as in the first definition “FROM” the…
“earliest beginning, lineage, origin, to rise, become visible, appear, a commencement, beginning, source, descent, race, lineage, ancestry, birth” (directly from Latin “originem” (nominative “origo”) from stem of “oriri”)
So without the “AB” or “FROM THE” as the prefix to “ORIGINE” or “EARLIEST BEGINNING” the word wouldn’t even hold any connotations descriptive of a people. It would effectively be saying… “My people are “Beginning”, instead of it’s proper use and meaning, by intentionally placing the prefix, “From the” to result in “From the beginning”…
“aborigine (noun.) 1858, mistaken singular of aborigines (1540s; the correct singular is aboriginal), from Latin Aborigines “the first ancestors of the Romans; the first inhabitants” (especially of Latium), possibly a tribal name, or from ab origine, literally “from the beginning.” Extended 1789 to natives of other countries which Europeans have colonized.” 7
“aboriginal (adj.) 1660s, “first, earliest,” especially in reference to inhabitants of lands colonized by Europeans, from aborigines (see aborigine) + -al (1); specific Australian sense is from 1820.” 8 “From Latin aborīginēs, original inhabitants : ab-, from; see ab-1 + orīgine, ablative of orīgō, beginning; see origin.]
Origins of the term “INDIGENOUS
9 A mid 17th century term from Latin indigena ‘a native’ (see indigene) + -ous. 10 A late 16th century term from French indigène, from Latin “indigena”, from indi- (strengthened form of in- ‘into’) + an element related to “gignere” ‘beget’.
Indigenous (adj.) 1640s, from Late Latin indigenus “born in a country, native,” from Latin indigena “sprung from the land,” as a noun, “a native,” literally “in-born,” or “born in (a place),” from Old Latin indu “in, within” (earlier endo) + *gene-, root of gignere (perf. genui) “beget,” from PIE *gen- “produce” (see genus). A person or thing that is indigenous or native; native; autochthon. 11
autochthon (n.) 1640s, “one sprung from the soil he inhabits” (plural autochthones), from Greek autokhthon “aborigines, natives,” literally “sprung from the land itself,” used of the Athenians and others who claimed descent from the Pelasgians, from auto- “self” (see auto-) + khthon “land, earth, soil” (see chthonic). The Latin name genius, which came from “gignere” meaning “to be the father of, beget.” 12
The term “Indigenous” therefore also has conotations of ancient originality, through the generational hereditary aspect of the native peoples. Aboriginal or “From the beginning” applies more to the land, whereas “Indigenous” applies more to the race of people “begotten”. The Old Latin “Indu” meaning “in, within” (earlier “endo”) as a prefix to the term “Genous” implies that the later is “within”, not “without” as the recent theory suggests with the “of no race” assumption.
Comments from Mark McMurtrie, who created this myth…
“Obviously Freeman Delusion is a governmental/Crown hack with little to no comprehension of legal meanings of words…. The FACT is words have multiple meanings – usually Dependant upon the forum/context in which they are used. For example, the word ‘Fixture’, when used by a cricketer means a game/match, when used by a plumber means a tap or other item, when used by a real estate agent means something attached to the ground….and when used in a legal context by a judge means a hearing or other ‘fixture’ before the court. The prefix ‘ab’ in a legal context mean out of, from by or not, as in the term AB-initio – meaning out of or from the beginning, or the term AB antiquo – meaning from ancient times etc…etc….(Blacks law dictionary 2nd – 6th Ed). This is why you have builders dictionaries, or Engineers dictionaries, or COMMON ENGLISH (street talk) dictionaries – however, if you wish to be in step in court or a legal forum, use a meaning which fits the context and don’t listen to nongs. There are always going to be those paid by the Crown/government/s who will try to disuade you from the truth.”
Hi Mark, you can call me Rob. Firstly, I find it quite interesting that you first go in attempting a personal attack with further spooky and paranoid conspirital insinuations, while completely forgetting to rebut the premise of this post with any factual evidence.
Secondly, if you had studied or even looked at the definitions in the links I provided, you would of noticed this whole post is nearly a direct quote from the dictionaries themselves combined, and virtually none of my own interpretations.
This leaves the self-evident fact that your argument is not with me, or this post, but with all the peer-reviewed interpretations of centuries of scholars of Old Latin around the globe, written by panels of learned, highly qualified and often distinguished Etymologists, which with all due respect sir, are better suited to, and more experienced in, interpreting the Old Latin, than someone unspecialised in this language, such as yourself.
Thirdly, and as you would know Mark, the definition of words, terms and phrases, when used in a legal sense, as in any NSW state magistrates court upwards, are clearly expressed in the glossary of the particular act, and in the publication Hansard. No court in Australia has any obligation to follow some dictionary from a foreign country, (especially not an outdated version) for the definition of any term. The definitions in the legislature are clear and unambiguous, and combined with precedent, leave little further room for interpretation by a court.
You wrote… <The prefix ‘ab’ in a legal context mean out of, from by or *not*, as in the term AB-initio – meaning out of or from the beginning, or the term AB antiquo – meaning from ancient times etc…etc….(Blacks law dictionary 2nd – 6th Ed).>
How exactly does the above comment support the notion that the “ab” prefix when combined with “origine” insinuates a “not” instead of an “away” or “from” as described in all the Old Latin dictionaries..?? The examples you gave of “AB initio” and “AB antiquo” likewise have the same “from” meaning as “AB origine” and don’t carry any “not” or “out of” meaning, even in the Blacks Law definition…
So Mark… do you actually have any evidence, any noted definitions, from any scholars of Old Latin, who are qualified in such etymology, that can confirm that the “AB” prefix in front of “ORIGINE” denotes a “NOT” meaning..?? (as you claim in your videos) Or are we just supposed to blindly and ignorantly disregard the evidence of thousands of years of the same meaning, and simply “take your word for it”..?
Do you have evidence Mark..??
Your response being predicated upon the fraudulent assertion that the UK was somehow lawfully entitled to supplant the Law of the Tribes with the statutes of the UK parliament. It has supposedly always been the law of the Christian ‘god’ that one cannot steal, covert their neighbors property, murder, bare false testimony, etc……ALL acts irrefutably undertaken as part of the UK parliaments’ ethnic cleansing and genocidal processes used on this continent against the Tribes up to and including to this day. Further, it has been, at least 1701, the DUTY of the monarch of that parliament to ‘protect the faith as created by law’. ALL of the acts mentioned above are also thereby prohibited under the monarchs oath – as they breach the basic tenet of the UK and its’ legally adopted faith. Apart from that, the claim made by the Crown in respect of Sovereignty here is flawed on the basis that such a claim is repugnant to Tribal law….which still remains first in time and best vat law.
I agree completely Mark, but that is irrelevant to the point of order here. The assumption that the parliament is subordinate to the monarch is also false. Sovereignty today is more associated with legitimate rule, rather than actual power.
The monarch in all constitutional systems today operate only on the advice of the ministers of the parliament in question. As in the UK, the parliament has no obligation to take royal opinions into account. Secondly, the monarch Queen of Australia has not held the title of Defender of the Faith since the 1952 conferences of the commonwealth ministers, and the subsequent 1973 amendments to the royal titles act. When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the Unite d Kingdom. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen acts entirely on the advice of Australian Government Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms “according to their respective laws and customs.” The Queen’s Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. The Queen is represented in Australia at the federal level by a Governor-General. He or she is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia and is completely independent of the British Government. At the state level The Queen is represented by the Governors of each state who are appointed on the advice of each state Premier.
Now, back to the point in question… “ABORIGINE” (from the beginning) or “ORIGINE” (the beginning)..??
But it isn’t the Queen of Australia and never has been – she isn’t even the Queen of the UK as the Coronation Ceremony was flawed. Not to mention, given she has NEVER been the LAWFUL ‘queen’ here on what remain Tribal Owned lands….she is entirely irrelevant – other than to her thugs in blue shirts and pedophiles on her benches who collude to enslave Tribal peoples without our consent nor will.
Those conspiratorial allegations are not within the legal provisions of any nation Mark, quite to the contrary, the current monarchy is the basis for all legal systems in the former colonies. No court, from a little state magistrates court to the International courts would even entertain such a concept as the current monarchy being invalid or fraudulent.
Your struggle for aboriginal sovereignty is not against the British, their Monarchy, or anything to do with the Commonwealth of independent nations. It is against the people who migrated HERE, who periodically consent to the continuation of the Australian constitutional system, and have more electoral power and numbers than the aboriginal minority. My primary concern would be if hypothetically we were all under some ancient aboriginal spiritual legal system that did not involve the right of the people to amend or alter the laws it contained to suit their own collective opinions as a democratic system does, then such a system would indeed be defined as a religious dictatorship, not unlike a Islamic state under Sharia law.
But besides that Mark, you seem to be avoiding the question of the validity of your “not original” and “of no race” claims in Old Latin etymology, the basis of this post, and all its reputable references. Can you share at least one piece of supportive evidence, from even one scholar of the ancient language, or did you just make it up to further confuse your own people..??
I have given my references.
There is no link or reference in this thread except the ones I have provided, I have yet to see ANY supportive references Mark, which is why I requested it.
Just because the Crowns subjects – who decided to amend THEIR CONstitution in as much as it spoke about Tribal peoples…does NOT give leverage to any claim by the Crown to have usurped the Sovereignty of the Tribes….
I might agree, but the current legal system doesn’t. We could hypotheticise any number of scenarios that “should be”, but point in question, it is not the reality of the only recognised and therefore legitimate form of law in this country.
WHOSE current ‘legal’ (as opposed to LAW) system ? the Crown corporations ? since when has the thief EVER had standing ? other than under white fella statutes…
While that may be your position Mark, there IS NO OTHER legitimate democratic rule on this landmass. The religious rites of an aboriginal minority are not a sufficient form of structure to govern the whole Australian nation, or provide for the democraticly-established right to grant or refuse electoral consent to the law-making body.
Incidentally, there are literally hundreds of people observing this interaction between us right now, dozens have shared this etymological information and are participating in various conversations about the validity of your Old Latin interpretation. Many people like myself, who also hold a deep respect for all your work on establishing the sovereignty of the aboriginal people, are waiting for your proof of claim, or rather, the etymological evidence to establish it.
- 1 OSTF Declaration http://ostf.weebly.com/ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood.html https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood-original-sovereign-tribal-federation.pdf
- 2 Mark McMurtrie on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mmcmurtrie1
- 3 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/indigenous-affairs/2014/09/06/freemen-movement-targets-indigenousaustralia/1409925600
- 4 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/murrumu-jeremy-geia-recruiting-drive-for-yidindji-nation-profile/6395544 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/03/indigenous-activist-murrumu-detained-after-refusing-to-recognise-former-name
- 5 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aborigine#aborigine__9
- 6 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=aborigine&searchmode=none
- 7 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=aborigine
- 8 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indigenous
- 9 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indigene
- 10 http://m.dictionary.com/definition/indigene
- 11 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=indigenous&allowed_in_frame=0
- 12 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=autochthon&searchmode=none