Dezi Freeman’s Beliefs In Personal Rights, Freedom, And Protecting His Family
Dezi Freeman held deep convictions about the right of every person — especially a father and husband — to live in peace with his family on their own land, free from what he saw as unlawful interference by authorities. These beliefs were not abstract theory for him. They were rooted in his everyday life in the High Country and in years of personal experiences that he described in his own words during court proceedings.
His Own Words From The Supreme Court Record
From Dezi’s sworn evidence and submissions in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Freeman v Maher [2024] VSC 682), the following reflects what he stated about his convictions:
He believed he had a “lawful duty, obligation and right to refuse to give body samples to police when there’s no reasonable cause demonstrated.” He argued that forcing compliance without proper grounds violated higher principles of law and justice, including the Commonwealth Constitution, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and what he described as a “higher source of human rights.” In his view, statutes could not override these fundamental protections.
Self-Defence And Protection Of Family
Dezi repeatedly framed his actions as self-defence for himself and his children. During a 2020 traffic stop, he told the court he drove away and filmed the officers because he believed it was “necessary in self-defence” to prevent “unlawful deprivation of liberty” for himself and his children.
He spoke of past police conduct that he believed had already harmed his family and said he was acting to stop it from happening again:
“I was responding to unlawful conduct… the unlawful detention of my kids.”
He described a “lifetime of bullying and predatorial behaviour by police”, stating his children had “also suffered in the past from this kind of conduct.” In court, he explained feeling under “extreme duress”, fearing escalation that could lead to arrest, search, or worse.
He characterised certain police actions as “assault and abduction” rather than lawful duties, and believed he had both the right — and the duty — to protect his family from them.
Equality Before The Law And Accountability
Dezi stood firmly on the principle of equality before the law and accountability. In one exchange, he challenged what he saw as imbalance and selective enforcement:
“How was it fair that when I haven’t arrested you for the multitude of crimes you have committed… how is it fair that you go after me for the splinter in mine? What about equality of arms?”
He raised concerns about what he described as “malicious prosecution” and a “personal vendetta”, telling the court his family had endured:
- “Four acts of criminal trespass and harassment on our home by police”
- Years of legal proceedings that caused ongoing harm
Legal Challenges And Broader Convictions
His private prosecution attempt against former Premier in 2021 flowed from the same convictions. He supported the case alleging treason and fraud tied to COVID-era policies, believing those actions breached higher constitutional and human-rights standards.
When the lower court dismissed the matter — as he and supporters anticipated — he viewed that dismissal as a procedural step that could allow escalation to the Supreme Court for what he considered a more substantive review.
Family As The Central Motivation
Throughout, Dezi’s focus remained on his wife and children. He consistently described them as the reason he continued legal challenges and resistance:
- To shield them from interference
- To raise them on the land he valued
- To live without fear of what he saw as state overreach
He expressed a desire to be left in peace, framing it as a quiet and personal choice to answer first to his conscience and his responsibility to his family.
The Core Of His Position
These beliefs guided every court appearance, every appeal, and every stand he took. In his framing, they were not about rejecting all law, but about insisting that:
- True law must protect the vulnerable
- Rights must be respected at a higher level than statute alone
- Families should be able to live without undue interference
On The “Sovereign Citizen” Label
Dezi never once called himself a sovereign citizen. That was a label applied by others. In his own words and submissions, his position centred on:
- The right to protect his family
- The expectation of fairness and accountability
- The ability to live freely on his land
His stance, as he expressed it, was grounded in personal responsibility, family protection, and a belief in higher legal and human rights principles.
Leave a Reply