October 08, 2011

Police Visit Ranty

How very exciting!











Two bobbies just knocked on my door. A drawn out conversation follows. I am CR, Cop1 did most of the talking with a sneering comment from Cop2 now and then.

(After opening the door)

Cop1: We are here to talk to you about a speeding offence which ocurred on 23rd September. Can we come in?

CR: No.

Cop1: Oh. It will be really awkward writing without something to lean on.....

(I say nothing).

Cop1: Let's get on with it then. Are you Captain Ranty of number 5 Ranty Barracks?

CR: Am I obliged to answer any questions?

Cop2: Yes! Yes you are.

CR: Under what law?

Cop1: Under Section 6, of the...

CR: Stop. That is not a law. It is a statute. I am not obliged to obey any of those.

Cop2: If you are going to be awkward we can just as easily take you to Fraserburgh police station*.

*This station is 40-odd miles away. Why did they not offer to take me to Banff, about 8 miles away?

CR: Sure. We can do that. I have nothing else on today.

(Neither cop says anything).

Cop2: Getting back to statutes, you fully insure your car. Are you not obeying that statute?

CR: So, what of it?

Cop1: Either you obey them all or you obey none. Which is it?

CR: For the time being I choose to insure my car. It protects me from idiots on the road.

Cop2: You can't pick and choose which to obey and which not to.

CR: Of course I can.

Cop1: Let's carry on. Is this number 5 Ranty Barracks?

CR: What does it say on your paperwork?

Cop1: 5 Ranty Barracks.

CR: Then I guess it is.

Cop1: What is the postcode?

CR: What does it say on your paperwork?

Cop1: (sighs) Well, I just thought you might help me out. I'll check. (Reads his own paperwork). Yes it is. (Writes it down in his notebook). Now then, are you the owner and registered keeper of XX XX XXX?

CR: Legally, I don't own it, no. Although I did make all the payments on the car.

Cop1: Who owns it then?

CR: The DVLA. Legally speaking, once you have registered something with someone, title/ownership passes to them.

Cop1: (writes this all down in his notebook). Right, I am putting you under caution. (launches into the caution). Then says "Do you understand?"

CR: No. I choose not to.

Cop2: What does that mean?

CR: All three of us know that the word "understand" means something different to you guys. (Both of them looked away from me for the first time and stared down at the ground).

Cop1: Were you sent Form blah de blah to fill in by CI Wallace?

CR: Yes.

Cop1: You sent it back blank, that is why we are here, to get all the details.

CR: I know. The three statutes quoted on the form don't apply to me. I certainly don't have to fill forms in.

Cop2: Yes you do!

CR: No. I don't.

Cop1: I am charging you under the Road Traffic blah de blah for speeding and Section 7 of the blah de blah for not completing the form you were sent. Do you understand?

CR: No.

Cop1: We have everything we need. You will be told in a letter what happens next. I don't suppose you will sign my notebook?

CR: No.

Cop1: Fair enough. We'll be off then.

CR: Very good. Nothing personal lads, I wasn't being difficult for the sake of it. You are doing your job, and although you don't understand why, so am I. I am different to everyone else, I have a fairly unique lawful status.

Cop1 and Cop2: Yeah, we do know. Thanks for your time.

CR. No problem. Have a nice day.

And off they toddled.

Thing is, I got the sense that they really did know where I was coming from, but their job is to enforce statutes (mainly) and to collect that all important revenue.

My oath (made three years ago) remains unviolated. I harmed no-one by travelling at a slightly faster speed than the posted limit. Conditions were perfect: dry road, bright day, and only me on that particular stretch of road at the time. No traffic on the other side of the road either, for that matter. No-one was killed or injured, no-one suffered loss, and at that moment in time, no-one was at any risk of being harmed.

I suppose the next step will be a summons. I will accept their invitation to appear under certain conditions. I still expect this never to reach court, but if it does, I will have won long before I get there. I still have several defences. This was just round one.

One final note: at all times during the chat with the boys in blue I remained calm and polite. That is important. I am also happy to admit that I was a little nervous. It's one thing writing about it, and quite another when you have to try and remember it all when you need it. Even though I am well prepared for court, I will no doubt be nervous then as well.

CR.

87 comments:

Old Holborn said...

Ask them if you can meet the victim of your "crime".

Captain Ranty said...

OH,

I am saving that one for court.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

I just remembered that Cop1 also asked: Do you work?

I said yes.

He asks: who do you work for?

I asked: What does that have to do with this?

He just shrugged and moved on with his questions.

Was he going to "tell on me" to my employers?

Too late mate. I already told them all about it.

CR.

JerryD said...

Well done CR! The first encounter with the police is always the most difficult - you handled it perfectly! From now on, it gets easier to face them - they are, after all, only clowns in costume. Once the mirage of their power is shattered you see them for the parasites of hate they really are.

Don't forget - you are not alone in this. We are with you - if you need support in Scotland just let us know. Keep up the good fight against tyranny and despotism.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Jerry.

I was trying to say "yes" as little as possible.

I also tried answering questions with questions but it can be tricky.

Let's see what happens next. If I need help and support I will let you guys know.

Thanks for the offer.

CR.

Oldrightie said...

CR, I feel a possible need for a collection coming on! Keep up the good work and we might end up with it going viral!

Captain Ranty said...

OR,

Thanks.

I don't think we need a collection though. I seriously doubt I will be parting company with my hard earned.

I will represent myself in court. To engage a lawyer is to admit you are incapable of defending yourself.

I am capable.

There is no fine. This has to be a court appearance for some reason. The guys I helped quash speeding fines were issued FPN's. I was issued with a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

The wording itself suggests that one is guilty long before the prosecution takes place. I'll have some fun with that as well.

Thanks again for the offer.

CR.

aphersu said...

Thank You. I am being jerked about by a state owned company for a bill I do not accept. I was inclined to fold and just pay it, cos its beginning to take up time. But fuck them. I am not going to surrender. Your story of resistance is inspiring.

RantinRab said...

I look forward to your account of the next round CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Aphersu,

Good for you.

Be polite, be firm, and be confident. If you aloow them, they will take the piss endlessly.

The vast majority of us have been folding for decades.

If more of us said no more often, they would have to change the way they deal with us.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Rab,

It should be interesting. I'll try to keep a better record of events.

CR.

Angry Exile said...

If that's reasonably accurate then I think Cop2 is a prize knobhead: "Either you obey them all or you obey none... You can't pick and choose." What a crock of shit. Does he order one of everything on the menu or just the dishes he likes to eat? Of course you can bloody choose to ignore only some and obey others, although you, CR, would probably describe it as doing something because it suits you to do that other people are compelled to do by statute.

Anyway, here's the bit that most interested me:

CR: ... I am different to everyone else, I have a fairly unique lawful status.

Cop1 and Cop2: Yeah, we do know.


One might almost think you're on some 'awkward bastards' list somewhere, Cap'n.

Captain Ranty said...

AE,

It's close enough. They said some stuff and I said some stuff which I either cannot recall exactly or it is not germane to the conversation. The main points are all in there though.

I reckon Cop2 was being deliberately obtuse. Bad cop, worse cop maybe? I dunno. I rarely come into contact with these guys. Cop2 issued all the threats, the dark looks and the sneers. He looked like he had a chip on his shoulder. But he smiled at the end, and that seemed genuine. Was it all an act? Again, I don't know.

If I am not on a government list somewhere I will be deeply fucking disappointed.

Rather than be on "a list" I'd prefer it if they sent out a UK wide bulletin saying "Just leave Ranty alone. He won't bother us if we don't bother him. If, however, the awkward little shit does cause harm or loss, pounce on him with all your might".

That would do me just fine.

CR.

wayne said...

Nice one mate, I enjoyed reading that little exchange!

Captain Ranty said...

Wayne,

It was all a bit odd. I was not ready for them to visit. I expected the originating officer to at least write back.

The two officers today said that one of the charges will see me paying up to one thousand pounds for not completing their form. Wait until they see my counter-claim.

The other, the alleged speeding offence, carries a fine of god knows how much and up to six penalty points. I'll deal with that when I know more. They were quite vague, really.

CR.

Twisted Root said...

Well done Ranty!

It's difficult to keep your head when the rubber meets the road (if you will permit the motoring metaphor) no matter how well prepared you are.

Let me tell you about a social conversation with a Police Sergeant acquiantance which your story has reminded me of.

Completely unprompted by me he said that speeding was not a crime. Well now, with an opening like that I could not resist the opportunity to educate him further. Pretty soon realisation spread across his face and he said this stuff was in one of the briefings he's had.

I didn't have the presence of mind to ask what the briefing said about us exactly (too late in the evening ;) ), but yes, they know where you are coming from.

Maverick said...

Sincerely all the best with this Ranty; if only the rest the sheeple could be woken from their slumber ..

wayne said...

Vague because they are clueless! I'm sure you'll keep us informed - love it.

Captain Ranty said...

TR,

Thanks.

For me, a crime is when you have hurt/raped/killed/robbed someone. Actually caused a physical loss.

For everything else, they have statutes. Sadly, they are more about collecting revenue than meting out justice.

I hope (on one level) to get my day in court so I can go through all of this with them.

Good to know that the cops do get briefed. They will come across people like me more and more often.

A mate of mine, also a copper, told me recently that we should say as little as possible when questioned. He said I would be amazed how much easier the "accused" make it for the police. If you keep talking, you keep incriminating yourself.


CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Maverick,

Thanks.

Life was so much simpler when I just said yes all the time.

It's good to be even a little awake..

CR.

mister_choos said...

Captain R

If you publicise the date of your court appearance I would be happy to come along for moral support if you want.

Even if not, I would love to see all of this put into practice and see the looks on their faces.

It might give me enough balls to try it myself.

Captain Ranty said...

MC,

I will do.

Mind you, that will be the end of my anonymity!

In the end though, this is a solo battle. You against them.

I'm not sure how you get a "fair" hearing when both the judge and the prosecutor get paid by the government. I will be asking that question early on in the proceedings.

Thanks for the offer. I'll let you have the dates when/if they "invite" me to court.

CR.

bollixed said...

Its easier to say YES! but isn't it so much more fun saying NO! I am now convinced that DVLA are nothing more than the Stasi. Have any of you seen the form D798U for replacing the photo on the ID card....sorry.....photo driving licence? Usual £1,000 'fine'. No mention of the actual statute being enforced....just says The Law....oooooooh.

Most telling. You have two choices. You renew the photo (i.e. reapply/beg for permission to contract with them for the privilege to use the roads that they hold in Trust for Us), pay £20 for the privilege, and they will grant you a new driving licence. The other option is to surrender your driving licence. What is this? East fucking Germany? Who are these cunts? What fucking hole did they crawl from? Hobson's choice. My own option is to keep my old green driving licence that I have already proven twice in court is still perfectly legal. Fuck 'em. I bet all those morons who ran off to get the brand new shiny not-ID cards are pissed now that they have to go through all this crap and pay £20. Get in line. Stop talking. Give us your money, sign here, now fuck off! They deserve everything they get for being dull. This was brought to my attention by someone who has just realised from this what is going on. Great news if it wakes zombies the fuck up!

Here's the paydirt though. The real reason. Nothing whatsoever to do with driving. Its information gathering for this British version of the Gestapo/KGB. Small print at bottom of page - "Information contained on this form and the driving licence record to which it relates may be passed to other Government organisations and law enforcement agencies. This would be for the purpose of checking your application and for the prevention and detection of crime or where there is legal power to do so. Individuals may consent to the release of driver data to third parties for driving entitlement purposes."

I'd have a field day if I were sent this.

All this is doing is keeping tabs on us normal people. Shows how fucking terrified they are of us. How is this in any way going to stop crime? Do you honestly think any real criminal is going to care about this and dutifully send a form away identifying him/herself? Its laughable. Do you think this will stop all those immigrants who use the same name and address? No guys, this is all about keeping good people under the thumb and afraid. They don't want us getting ideas while they continue to turn these Isles into one huge network of corporations, and us into obedient drones. This IS the new East Germany. We DO now have the EU Stasi keeping citizen files on us. The state is very. very confused about who runs these islands and who the fucking boss is. Roll on the economic crash. We need this brought to a head. I am certain too (from private conversations with police and army) that the State WILL NOT be able to rely on the police and army when the economic shit hits the economic fan. My police friends know its going to get real nasty real quick and it won't just be bottles and bricks....and they are ready to chuck in their badges when the time is right.

I'm prepped for the crash. Got the popcorn at the ready and a comfy seat ready to watch the show. The fuckers don't seem to want to work with us law-abiding peeps to find a workable remedy so it'll be fun to see how the authoritarian SS bastards deal with whatever comes behind us.

bollixed said...

I do not consent. I will not comply. I am most definitely not afraid.

You guys need to start looking into trusts. Stop using the bloody Living Trust and invent your own.

By the way Ranty, I am certain that you, the man, still have common law ownership and Equity Ownership of the steel box. You have a Bill of Sale? Deferring to DVLA by accepting the role as Keeper (Trustee) messes with Legal Ownership only. You can also pull out the deal at any time it suits you as Executor. DVLA offer a presumption and we do not rebut it. Rebut the bugger. Do what I am doing. Tell the Stasi, goose-stepping bunch of bureaucratic fuckwits with foreign Names (funny that!) that you, as the Executor of the Private Trust of the car (not the Public Trust financial 'vehicle') have just transferred ownership of the steel box to you, the man and it is now under a new Private Trust. A polite note advising them of this and advising that as the Private Trust you now rebut all reference to registration and deferment to SS-UberBureau DVLA. They can have their commercial vehicle instrument back. Rebut all presumptions. Sure it will cause some temporary inconvenience and you'll get lots and lots of shitty, threatening letters from those self-important DVLA Apparatchiks with foreign names but what they are about to meet is a tonne of commercial liens. I won't give the whole game away what I'm doing but focus on the private trusts and living trusts within DVLA. Make sure you have sent your fee schedule, as the new Executor of the car trust, to the CEO of DVLA, and the Permanent Secretary of the Dept for Transport and anyone who wrote snotty, dishonourable letters to you - then pick your target and have fun.

At the mo they don't respect us. Time to earn that respect and force them to fuck off to North Korea or China or Cuba where they can get away with this kind of shit. This is Britain. This is my Britain! This is not how we do things here.

paul said...

If you don't mind answering what might seem like a stupid question: what recourse would the cops have had if you hadn't answered the door to them? You refused to accept the caution (i.e. did not admit guilt)- great. They threatened you with arrest (to take to the station) to elicit your cooperation. You didn't co-operate, they didn't arrest you, but they charged you.

I'm still figuring this out, if you could answer my question, would be very grateful.

Bill said...

Please watch and learn...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

the lioness said...

EXAMPLE TO USE:
Letter to Claimant

[Your name and address]
[Claimant’s name and address]
[Date: ]

Dear [insert claimant/court name here],

Further to your [letter/notice/summons etc] dated [date] ref [their reference] I bring to your attention that the following FOUNDATION EVIDENCE for your claim is missing:

• PROOF of CLAIM.
• PROOF OF AUTHORITY.

I have not given my consent to be governed or policed.

This appears to be a tort conversion.

Please note: Legislation, Acts of Parliament, FORCE used and common practice are all claims made upon me, however they are neither PROOF of CLAIM nor PROOF of AUTHORITY. The only proof they provide is proof of FORCE.

If you choose to progress this matter, you should be aware that I shall summons witness evidence in court, demanding Proof of Claim and Proof of Authority that you (or someone, somewhere - anyone, anywhere) have a higher claim upon me than me – without my consent. I shall also file a Statutory Declaration to that effect.

If you do not furnish me with the FOUNDATION EVIDENCE listed above within the statutory twenty (20) working days and still pursue me for this matter, please be aware that I shall summons it accordingly. I shall also OBJECT in court to the complete lack of FOUNDATION EVIDENCE, real evidence, illustrative evidence, demonstrative evidence, witness evidence or documentary evidence regarding your claim and I will counterclaim, citing (civil) crimes including but not limited to; TORT CONVERSION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED), MALFEASANCE/MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Yours sincerely,

bollixed said...

@Paul....absolutely. You have the right to remain silent whenever and wherever you want. Give no names. Unless you've committed a crime you have no reason to be answering questions from anyone you don't want to.

By the way, we had 6 armed rapid response unit policemen (actually very decent blokes who were as bewildered as us) in attendance at a court hearing last week because we threatened to arrest the Judge if he/she broke the Law. That Judge was replaced by another (very nice) Judge who was respectful of us. The self-important court officials didn't know what we were talking about and were shushing us away as we tried to gain correct jurisdiction. They couldn't even tell us what jurisdiction we were under! That's when we stamped our authority and got their bloody attention. We were threatened with arrest for contempt if we were recording events (wonder where that came from?) and we agreed to these terms as long as everyone else in the court also switched off their mobile phones. It was good fun and I am certain we are finding good guys in the system now replacing the bad eggs. They are scared of us, guys. Keep cool. Know your stuff. Stand your ground. Stay in honour. Avoid getting involved in disputes with self-important middlemen. Understand your role in the court. Do not defer authority!! Make the court aware that you can't agree anything on behalf of the living trust.... that you can't sign or agree anything on behalf of the trust that you are not comfortable with. That would be breach of trust and negligence of duty to the Benefactor. Let the Judge order or instruct you but advise them in advance (in front of witnesses) that by doing so they are accepting full responsibility for the living trust. If they are stupid enough to proceed with the order or instruction advise them they will be presented with the mortgage, bills, car payments etc etc etc.

Finally, Bank of England promissory notes are a negotiable instrument. They have a notional value which is different from the actual value. If its negotiable....NEGOTIATE the bugger! Have you anywhere in your agreements agreed the value of '£'? I bet you haven't and it is in fact a presumed/notional value. Stop presuming. The actual value of '£' is as a debt instrument. It is actually worth less than zero. I offer one shiny new penny instead. My opening offer in the negotiation if you like. The penny has a real value in metal which is greater than zero so is more than they are asking of you. Have fun with that peeps. Simple to the point of absurdity. Our answers need to be simple for the zombie masses to be able to use during the breaks in X Factor.

Just remember. We're the good guys in all this mess.

Anonymous said...

Excellent work Captain, enjoyed every word, and the comments to boot.

Perchance do you have / are you thinking of getting CCTV & recording capability for any future doorstep encounters? Or just for general observation of the frontage of your property?

They use them, why shouldn't we? ;-) You can then either ignore anyone you aren't expecting (my default) or set things up so that there is a record of anything that goes on if you do open the door.

Could come in handy, especially as there were two of them and one of you. We know how often people like UKBA and TVL invent conversations they claim to have had with people, although affidavits of our own can then come into play.

Have you written up the exchange in affidavit form yet? Do it whilst it's fresh in the mind. Cop 1 could write anything in that notebook and Cop 2 will back him up.

In this part:

"CR: Am I obliged to answer any questions?"

"Cop2: Yes! Yes you are."

As we know, there is no duty to answer questions on our part - hence "Am I obliged to answer that question", and that's before we get to the right to silence anyway - but there is evidence from some time back of the police using the corporate policies, as then stood, to compel people to answer. You will see in a quote below why I am mentioning the corporate policies, even though they mean nothing. ;-)

The Police Act 1964 Section 51, which concerned the offence of obstructing constables in their duty, was evidently being interpreted by some officers as giving them the power to "oblige" people - "persons", sorry ;-) - to answer questions and if none was forthcoming the "person" was then arrested and charged.

Here is a neat little ruling from 1966 illustrating what had happened and how the police were effectively told to stop doing it.

Bewigged judge says: "It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority..."

Common law 1, statute law 0... :-D

The 1964 Act was replaced by the Police Act 1996 but the section was copied over verbatim and is now Section 89; AFAIK it is still in force. The only thing that changed was the punishment for the obstruction "offence"; in 1964 it was punishable by a £20 fine and/or one month's imprisonment whilst under the present version it's a £1000 fine and/or one month's imprisonment. Going on average inflation, £20 in '64 would be about £300 now, so there's a bit of price hiking happening on the part of our corporate revenue collectors.

Go figure.

Of course, if your visitors were not there as a constables, then.... :-D

Regards

TSL

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

It will be even better IF they ever get to demanding money from you.

I just ignore them full stop, however there will / may be a time when they demand money. I am just going to ask them what do they mean by money.
If they respond by stating a 'promissory note' is money, they have LOST there and then - I believe a lecture would be warranted.
If they state or refer to the bill of exchange I will comply and make out a note that promises to pay, I will of course demand to be shown by a lawyer HOW the note is to be prepared so that it is absolutely legal. The court should supply the lawyer and I of course when in he know will make out another promissory note to pay him, I may even give the Magistrate a tip ;-)

Anonymous said...

Don't know if this will help you in your country. To me, this is one of the best advice I've gotten from a youtube video, although it came in a day late and a dollar short for me. Here it is:

Don't talk to cops!

gravityengineer.blogspot.com/2011/07/dont-talk-to-cops.html

Anonymous said...

Cap'n,

"Thing is, I got the sense that they really did know where I was coming from, but their job is to enforce statutes (mainly) and to collect that all important revenue."

And therein lies the problem Cap'n. They're simply following orders like the rest of society. No different to the council workers who are happily filling in forms that are making people's lives a misery. No different to the social workers, ripping children from good homes to give them to chutney ferret couples to look after. The same as the armed forces are over in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, soon to be Sudan, Somalia and Iran, killing people, because IT'S THEIR JOB.

Our society is being fucked over day in day out, not b the elites, because they aren't the fuckers carrying out the misery enforcements. It's odd but they'll blame the general/commander for issuing orders to kill one thousand people, yet they don't kill them, the soldiers do. It seems to be a very convenient way of the wrongdoers passing the buck because they were following orders doesn't it?
Ask yourself a question Cap'n. If i broke your arms and legs as well as snap your spine in two, putting you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life, who would you be angry with - me for doing it, or the human who told me to do it? You see your answer will pretty much sum up your thoughts as to who the problem makers really are.

I'm beginning to see that it's very much and always really has been the case of "who's the bigger fool, the fool or the fool that follows" quite frankly. Therefore, when it comes to the police, I see them as part of the problem because they are enforcing the policy that they don't have to enforce, because they are the protection that stands between the elites and the rest of us.
So I hate to say it Cap'n but being apologetic/nice to these wankers after they've come around to your house trying to con you, pretty much shows that you're forgiving the fucks who are creating the hell we're all living in at this precise moment in time.

Who made it so that I must obey what another man says, because they wear a uniform, have paramilitary webbing around their wastes, bulletproof vests, walky-talkies, carry stun guns, pepper spray, notebooks, handcuffs and guns? I don't remember, ever voting or agreeing for other people to dictate to me how I should live my life, do you? I don't remember having anything to do with having a man/woman who wears a silly wig, tell me what I must do with my life, do you?

The BCG and pretty much most freeman/lawful rebellion organisations are telling us that we should respect the police as they're only doing their job. I say fuck 'em. They're wankers and if we allow them to continue, we may as well put a gun to our heads now and pull the trigger or else get ready for total slavery in the years ahead.

Harbinger

JuliaM said...

"CR: Sure. We can do that. I have nothing else on today.

(Neither cop says anything).

Cop2: Getting back to statutes..."


Heh! And that's when they lost all authority they might have had...

Tony said...

I have a relative who is a Police Constable annd I was talking to him the other day about there could not be a crime without a victim and as an example mentioned speeding on a clear road. He replied " Oh yest there is a victim says he" "Who be that?" says I "Regina"

I had to pick myself up from the floor laughing. Do they really believe that stuff. Yes I'm afraid they do.

Pathetic isn't it?

Tony

georgesilver said...

Dear Captain I admire your stand. Only you know if it will accomplish anything. I know you'll say "if enough people stand-up and be counted etc. etc. etc." the system will change. I don't think it will. Your problem is you are fighting a "system" and that seems to me to be the flaw in your efforts. You want to be considered as a human individual but battle with an unidentifiable "system" that is not an individual.
If you must "engage" the enemy then you should fight man to man. The policemen in your story were your aggressors. You should have informed them that you take their threats as a personal attack and that if they harm you in anyway you will feel duty bound to pursue them. You probably haven't got the time or the inclination to do this.
Putting all great and noble principals to one side I would be inclined to use logic and cost effectiveness in dealing with the system. Break as many rules (statutes) as possible but if caught just pay the fine as a cost of operating in the "system". The more times you are not caught the cost effectiveness benefit will come into play. This is probably much more fun than waiting to go to court or confronting the police on your doorstep.
There must be many ways that "annoyed" individuals working loosely together could make the lives of "enforcers" difficult. Just think of all the "wild-goose-chases" these clowns of the system could be sent on until their "inspector" pleads for mercy.
Just a thought.

Harry Hook said...

"CR: All three of us know that the word "understand" means something different to you guys."

Could you kindly elaborate on that point Cap'n.

Harry.

Captain Ranty said...

Please forgive the non-replies folks.

I haz been out shopping all day. Well, that's a stretch, it would be more accurate to say I observed. And carried.

I said: you should have married a mule.

She said: I did.

Quick reply to Harry: to the police, to understand is to "stand under" [their authority]. If you answer yes to that question, you just gave away all your rights [which are solid gold] for benefits [which are plastic].

They both knew that I knew that.

CR.

(I will answer other comments when I have rammed in some calories).

Harry Hook said...

Thankyou for that Cap'n... as it happens, I just found this on FMOTL...
http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6914

"When an agent of this legal world - the underworld - asks "Do you understand?" the correct answer is "NO, I do NOT understand, I reserve ALL of my rights at ALL times and waive NONE of my rights at ANY time" to answer yes means you put yourself UNDER them, under their jurisdiction... "

Many thanks,
Harry.

James Higham said...

True courage.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

This is the true etimology of 'understand'.

Just to make this clear
'Understand' as used by the police or anyone really means to comprhend, grasp the idea of, stand in the midst of.
John Harris started the 'STAND - UNDER' and I heard him state that this was HIS interpretation.

I am not going to disagree with John because to me it sounds about right.
However if one is asked if they understand, in reality they are stating that they 'KNOW' what it is the other person is stating / talking about.
In Cptn's case the police were talking about the 'road traffic act' and I for one really DO 'understand' that the police 'OFFICER' DID not understand the road traffic act. Now I don't know about Cptn but I would hazard a guess that he too does not understand the road traffic act.

Even, 'You were caught speeding, do you understand' should court the reply 'No I do not'.

Namaste, phil;

Harry Hook said...

I have to disagree with you there LAAL... Anyway, proclaiming "Am I obliged to 'understand'?" should cover both possibilities.

hangemall said...

Perhaps one way to see how they use the word "understand" is to say to them "Two plus two equals four. Do you understand?" and see what they say.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

I think it is safer to be cautious about what one says to police 'officer / constable'.
Yes Harry 'proclaiming "Am I obliged to 'understand'?" should cover both possibilities', I agree.

Namaste, phil

Dick Puddlecote said...

Nice one, Cap'n. Looking forward to hearing further updates. Reading the above, you handled it well, and as we know, the police don't tend to go after awkward targets much, preferring the easy fine.

You might find that paperwork will get binned often rather than bother with that 'annoying bastard at 5 Ranty Barracks' lol.

Of course, you'll eventually come across the one from Police Academy who saw arresting a shark as a challenge he was ready to take on. There's a self-regarding supercop in every station.

Woman on a Raft said...

Well done Captain. I'm surprised either of the officers wanted to get in to the finer points of jurisprudence.

Still, they can tell traffic or whoever that they've done their bit and if they want to take you to court, that's up to them. It's about legal jurisdiction, not somebody who is driving a shed and is a menace on the road.

I'd certainly think about having a small camera(s) and microphones on the door just for the record.

Anonymous said...

Live an 'Achievable Life',

"I think it is safer to be cautious about what one says to police 'officer / constable'."

Safer? Why?
Did you give permission to take Joe Blogs off the street, give them a gun so they can start abusing people?
A policeman is a POLICY MAN. He/she was created NOT to protect the public, but protect the elites (who have been rogering us silly for thousands of years) FROM the public.
This is the problem.
The people fuck the people over, not the elites. The elites tell the people to fuck one another over and they do it.
I am now fully beginning to understand just why the elites speak as they do on everyone else because we (not myself) happen to be nothing but a bunch of braindead fuckwits who allow one another to fuck each other over, for some fat wank at the top of the castle, to rape us of all we have.
The fat wank is merely giving the orders. We're the ones abusing one another and this visit from the plod to the Captain's address proves so.

I'll speak to a policy man no differently to how I would speak to anyone else. Should this arsehole decide to assault me, I will deal with them no differently as to how I would anyone else who decided to attack me.

Policy men are no different to you and me.
I did not give them their power and the people that did had no authority whatsoever to do so either. Therefore, the policy men are nothing buy fascist arseholes, miniature psychopaths, no doubt bullied/bullies at school carrying on their problems into the big wide world on the general public.

It's high time we all stopped looking at authority and authority 'figures' because I for sure as hell, gave no one the right to abuse me or dictate to me how I should live my life.

The problem with people like you Phil is that you are quite happy to live by the system that's been fucking us over for thousands of years but just change it a little.
It's corrupt.
It needs smashing into millions of pieces.
We need our freedom, not more control from 'authority figures' and bloody experts.

This is the reality. You either want the system or you don't and sad to say, it seems you want the former that therefore makes you no different to those bashing us all silly for more power grabbing.

Harbinger

Harry Hook said...

Harbinger said... "Policy men are no different to you and me. "

Except that the don't have to declare lawful rebellion, to dodge a few statutes.

Cap'n, more than anything, these 'simple' everyday examples of direct dealings with TPTB provide an inspiration to those watching from the touchline. You haven't got a loophole lawyer and it's a straight forward fine situation. Prosecution should follow none payment. But, if you manage to avoid any penalty, thousands of people will ask "what's going on 'ere?" and take LR a lot more seriously.

Captain Ranty said...

Bollixed,

Two great comments. Thanks.

I am still hazy on Trusts. I have watched quite a few vids and read up on them but it is not sinking in for some reason.

If you want to do a guest post on Trusts, please let me know.

We all need to learn about them but I don't feel capable of explaining them simply.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Paul,

It's a moot point. I would have opened the door anyway. Not answering would (for me) have been hiding like a child. I did something wrong (in their eyes) and the only way to sort it out is to communicate, and go through the process. Only then can you fight back. I needed a reason to go to court so I could attempt to get a ruling on my LR status. Not answering the door would just have slowed the whole thing down.

As to what happens if you don't answer the knock: I don't know. But I imagine they just keep coming back until you do. Or, they snatch you off the street. This way I was in control.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Bill,

Thanks for that link.

I urge everyone to watch it.

It was posted on here some time ago.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

The Lioness (Sarah),

Thanks for the template.

I just ordered your book. It should be here on Thursday.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

TSL,

What I should have done was record the conversation. I did not. If I had known they were coming I could have prepared myself better.

By not signing his notebook it is now a "his word against mine" situation. I'll deal with that in court, or, I'll ask for a copy of his notes. I wasn't terribly interested in his scribblings but they may become important.

They were not visiting in their capacity as constables. Their Oath is to keep the peace (no peace was broken) to uphold the law (no law was broken) to prevent crime (no crime had taken place) and to detect crime (again, no crime had taken place). They were here to ensure that they have all the details they think they need to extort money from me.

They want £1000 for not filling in the form. So did the Census Man. He didn't get his £1000. Companies House wanted £1500 for late filing. They didn't get that. HMRC wanted £5000 for owed corporation tax. They didn't get it.

The police will not get their £1000 either. They just don't know that yet.

Thanks for the links. Very very interesting.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Phil,

At one point in the chat I did start to try and educate them. The snippy one (Cop2) sneered and said "We aren't here to debate law".

Which was the most honest thing he said during the short exchange. They weren't. They aren't trained in the law. They are automatons.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Grav,

Thanks for the link.

Folks, do watch it. Never mind that it is US based. The same rules apply here.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

H,

There was at least a dozen different ways I could have handled the visit.

I chose to be polite but to say as little as possible.

I know they are acting under orders and I know that (come the reckoning) that is no defence. I also knew they were drones. They are probably super sweet lads when they don't wear the serge, but for me to get the result I needed, courtesy was what was needed.

We are moving on. The end game will happen either in court or before we ever get there.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Julia,

I was quite surprised by that.

They made an offer, I accepted, and for a heartbeat I thought I was heading to the police station. For all the difference it would have made. They would have gotten the same answers. Mind you, during the one hour journey there I could have mulled it over some more and may have performed better.

I really am still surprised that they did not attempt to get me on their home turf. Probably too much trouble for them.

It was kind of cool the way things turned out. I was on my top step staring down at them the whole time. Psychologically, it was good for me and bad for them.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Tony,

Since I have revoked my allegiance to that lady, she cannot be a victim of mine. She is persona non grata.

I'll use that in court as well.

Thanks for the info.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

I hear you.

But I see little point in disregarding the "rules" then paying a fine for the pleasure.

I'd prefer to ignore their statutes and then explain why. I will not be appearing in court for free. There will be a counter-claim.

Nothing, and I really do mean nothing, shakes them more than when you demand money from them. It is their world. They understand a demand when they see one. As mentioned in an earlier reply, they back away sharpish when you tell them "Sure. I'll pay that. But you must pay this". My counter-claims are always at least fifty times more than they demand of me.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

James,

Or true stupidity.

Time will tell.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

DP,

I know.

They prefer the soft underbelly.

My refusal to fill in that form was really a first shot across their bows. If they intend to prosecute I should hear back from them in a few days.

I almost feel sorry for them. They have no idea what I have in store for them.

Then again, they have guns. And gaols.

Let's see what they do next. It will inform me and it will determine my response.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

WoaR,

I did try.

But they didn't want to get into it.

It would have been a wasted effort anyway. Unless their Super instructs them differently, they just plod on.

It will take years to make them understand.

The camera is a good idea. I just don't expect these people to call that often. If it is going to be a regular thing I will invest in some good tech to capture it all.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Harry,

There was no option of a fine. Just that ridiculous "Notice of Intended Prosecution".

Fines I can deal with all day long. This is a horse of a different colour.

In many ways it gets me to where I am going much faster.

Every cloud, etc.

CR.

mister_choos said...

CR

It is fine if you want to keep your anonymynity (obviously), but if you want, the offer is there. If you don't want the world to find out on your blog, you can e mail me with the details. KNowing my luck I will be at work as I always seem to miss anything interesting.

As we work in the same industry, we may have met before, or at least passed each other in the airport.

Captain Ranty said...

M_C,

Thanks.

Wing me a note and I will keep in touch with you.

I am here: captainranty at btinternet dot com

Time we had a pint at the airport!

CR.

Anonymous said...

I have never posted here before but I have come to regard this particular blog as one of my favourites and I look in on it every day. Your actions are highly commendable, inspirational even and I find myself increasingly envious of your knowledgeable abilities. I am morbidly curious though as to how would one educate himself to such a degree as to become a verifiable and thoroughly effective pain in the arse to the "authorities"?

You have my best regards for a successful outcome to all your quests. I wish you well not just for having the temerity to stand up to these people but as much for the fact that I too am sick to the pit of my stomach as the way society is run for the benefit of the few and to the detriment of the rest of us.

Do keep us appraised. I for one will be following your exploits with relish and very much look forward to hearing how it plays out.

An angry man.

Captain Ranty said...

AAM,

I was angry too.

It all started with the smoking ban here in Scotland. I was outraged to learn that legislation is passed on no more than a whim. So I set to studying the law/legislation and one thing led to another.

Now, many thousands of hours of research later, I find myself knowing a little more than I used to.

The forum at FMOTL is first port of call for anyone starting out. Lawful Rebellion is a repository of some of the finest writing I have come across. Free The Planet is hosted/written by Freeman Michael-you will learn a ton of stuff here.

Follow the links from each of those sites and you will find what I found: 10,000 scary facts (that some days I wish I didn't know).

Thank you for your good wishes. In an ideal world I will emerge victorious and I will shout it from the rooftops.

Or, they will shut me up.

You need to lose the anger (not easy, I know from personal experience), and you need to lose the fear (this was easier than letting go of my outrage) and this will help to uncloud your mind and the info will park up nicely in your brain.

This has been a long road so far, but if I can get a fair hearing at the court, I will consider it a worthy trek.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Must everyone in the UK be on the electoral register? under threat of £1000 fine if they refuse and/or don't want to be?

I wish to educate myself....

Does the statue law just
(a) obligates the registrar, but not you.
(b) gives the 'power to require' to the registration officer, but nothing more?

What gives here?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

I don't know too much about it. Perhaps other commenters can help.

What is it about £1,000?

Everything (we don't/won't do) carries a threat of a £1,000 fine.

They love that number.

I suggest you counter-claim for £50,000 when you ask for proof of claim that you MUST sign the electoral roll.

Also, ask them exactly when we became North fucking Korea.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Captain, what is "proof of claim"?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

You should use Proof of Claim any time they make demands of you.

Make them prove that their claim has a basis in law.

Read every statute on Income Tax (for instance) and see if you can spot the term "man" or "woman" anywhere.

They don't use those terms. That's because they are written for "persons". Persons are corporations. Are you a corporation? No? Then why should you the man/woman pay income tax?

In that case you can ask HMRC for Proof of Claim that you (the man/woman) must pay Income Tax.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff Cap'n you sound to have handled yourself very well indeed.

Can't wait to see how this pans out, I wish you the best of luck, though it doesn't sound like you need it ;)

@anon 16:19

Deletion from the electoral role is the easiest thing I've done Requiring nothing more than ignorance and laziness, two of my specialities.

Throw the demands in the bin and ignore the door Knockers, after 3 visits I received a letter titled 'Register of electors-Notice of deletion' which among other things threatened me with, wait for it...

"You may not be able to obtain credit or open a bank account"

Oh I laughed like a drain when I read that :) Just received another, and low and behold my name is no longer on it, job done!

CM

Anonymous said...

Anon,

How about this:

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/2krb5-illegal-not-electoral-roll-will-letting.html

"Accepted Answer

Hi

Its legal not to be. You don't have to vote at all.

But it is generally good for stability if you are on the electrol roll. They could reject your application on that basis. If there is no other reason to do so though they probably would not."

Any use?

Any one else add anything here?

georgesilver said...

Dear Captain. I'm sure you'll think I'm not entering into the spirit of your campaign and that I shall be probably put down as some antagonistic kill joy but I just can't see the point of all the effort that has gone into avoiding a speeding fine.
Your not going to change the World and the system.
I know you will say that someone has to make a stand. etc. etc. but it just like King Canute.
I know I will also get a lot of stick from the rest of the "train-spotters" club that revel in all the little nuances of what was said to the police and what was not said. I'm sure they would be welcome on the aliens and UFO sites. I'm not trying to be offensive and trite but there seems to be a whole little world of people who love this sort of thing. I'm sure it would go nicely along side the campaign for real ale.
I just don't see it having any real effect.
Actually what do you really hope to achieve?

I'm all for changing the system but your stand seems to have a lot of the Miss Marple rather than Mayhem.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

Do you honestly think I am doing all of this to avoid a bloody speeding fine?

Seriously, do you?

The fine is incidental. I can afford to pay it five times over.

The fine (actually, the Intended Prosecution) is my ticket to a court room. It is there I will make my stand. As I keep saying, all of my paperwork is in order, and they will not be able to lay a glove on me.

The chat with the cops is also incidental. I just tried to accurately report what was said. But it is meaningless in the grand scheme.

I need to be in front of a sheriff. I will, however, try to get a result without the dog & pony show at the county court.

My "campaign" was never about avoiding fines.

I have more noble intentions than that. If I never successfully got this point across then three years of scribbling here has been a right waste of my time and yours.

CR.

Anonymous said...

@ the Anons, about the electoral roll

There were a few comments on this in some of the Captain's recent articles such as Distressing and Distraining the Police and another from just before that.

Aside from the fact that all of the stuff relating to the Register is statute based and therefore completely meaningless, it is true that:
- It is the duty of the Electoral Registration Officer to maintain the Register, and they can "require" us to supply information.
- We commit an "offence" for not supplying information, or for supplying false information - the fine IS NOT for not registering.

This was a neat little fudge by Liebore which essentially brought in compulsory registration without strictly making it compulsory. In addition, the Electoral Administration Act 2006 increased the fine for supplying false information to £5000.

You may find that most local councils say registration is compulsory, but this is not correct.

However, an "offence" cannot result from a "no contact" situation. This is exactly the same way that some avoided the Census - by not opening the door and making all correspondence disappear into a black hole. (Some used some rather excellent conditional acceptances.)

Others take the opinion that the household canvass is an invitation to contract and as such must be expressly refused otherwise consent – to be governed, no less – will be assumed.

All I know is that when I used the "black hole" approach it resulted in no problems of any sort on my part (ditto with TVL) and if the roll is the source of consent then those not on it cannot have given that consent either implicitly or explicitly. It's each to their own, but you have to evaluate what may (or may not) happen based on your own understanding.

In the comments of one of CR’s prior articles, I mentioned the changes to the Register which the Coagulation is going to bring in by the next General Election. Basically their White Paper says that the canvass is being supplemented by “Individual Electoral Registration”, which will involve everyone registering by name and using “personal identifiers” when voting such as National Insurance Numbers and Dates of Birth, cross-checked with DWP and HMRC.

However, under these proposals, registration will not be compulsory. Completion of the individual forms will not be compulsory either (and you can indicate that you don't want to be chased up) and, more importantly, the Electoral Register after 2015 will solely comprise those who have been through the Individual Electoral Registration process and no one else. The household canvass remains but may be phased out in the future.

I do find it hard to accept that IER won't be compulsory in some way, but the White Paper certainly says that it will be voluntary. But then such things are always subject to change. There are several stages to go before another toilet paper statute is vomited out of Parliament.

That bastion of unbiased journalistic accuracy, the BBC, implies it will be compulsory to fill these forms out. But then introduces uncertainty by reporting Mark Harper MP saying it will be compulsory and then the head of the Electoral Commission saying it won't be. [Eyeroll]

Of course we are told that it will be difficult to "get credit" by not being on the electoral roll. Others may say that "getting credit" was a rather significant part of the problems we face today, irrespective of whether or not one believes the situation has been engineered to that end.

To my mind it is more advantageous to be off the Register than on it, but this is something you must decide for yourselves according to your own circumstances.

Regards

TSL

NewsboyCap said...

captain

If I never successfully got this point across then three years of scribbling here has been a right waste of my time and yours.

Certainly not a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned. You have opened my eyes to the waste and corruption of TPTB, not only how they twist the meanings of words but the fact that they interpret their own 'laws' to suit themselves.

George, when more people wake up to what the Captain and others are trying to achieve then you will get your MAYHEM.

And it won't be pretty.

Anonymous said...

Captain

It is most definitely not a waste of time. I have mentioned this to you before, but again I echo what NBC says above. Moreover your end game is one I applaud you for and it is definitely not for the faint hearted or unprepared. I know you are neither of those!

You mentioned maybe getting some tech; there are of course many places to look at if you want to get into home CCTV but one interesting place is the guys over at TV Licence Resistance. Some of them are seriously hardcore on home surveillance and privacy-enhancing measures. I know it’s not applicable currently, but in future cases…

The kit is not that expensive these days and I think the recommended minimum resolution for court evidence is something pathetic like 352x288. That kind of res is easily covered by modern mobile phones and of course there’s nothing preventing you from recording footage on your own property. Goons and revenue collectors object but there’s absolutely no grounds for them to stop you, so it’s tough shit and you can tell them that – I have in the past! :-)

In fact current TVL operating procedures stipulate that as soon as a salesman sees any kind of recording equipment he must depart immediately. There was a great YT vid up for a while where a guy wearing the V mask answers the door to a TVL salesman, motions him to wait and goes back into the house to get his camera. As soon as it appears the goon scarpers! :-D

I do understand the “not going to hide in my own house” argument but to me that is not the point. The home is your refuge against the pestilence raging most furiously abroad; you call it Ranty Barracks, partly as a nickname: yet a fortress it is, nevertheless. Though they try to denude it all the time…

I used to do the same: whenever they came a-knocking I would answer and let them have it, or try to educate them if I thought it would serve a purpose. Eventually I realised that with me it was the ego taking over – I’m not saying that’s the case with your good self (nor anyone else who may read this), as I know your aims in this endeavour, it was just a personal observation of my own behaviour. I stopped doing it and things are ten times easier. I don’t give a hoot if they are standing outside the door and can hear me moving around. I don’t hide behind the sofa and wait for them to leave; I carry on with whatever I’m doing and ignore them completely.

Again I recognise that the above does not apply to your current circumstances, and obviously with things like letters and silly NIPs, and, heaven forfend, lawful - or unlawful ;) - warrants, it demands a different approach. However, I don’t have a letterbox either…

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

And one more CR, on fines:

The £1000 fine derives from the "Standard Scale" which was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 Section 37 and back-inserted into Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

Originally it was set at £50 for Level 1 up to £2500 for Level 5. Then came the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Section 17, which upped the scale to its current levels - £200 for Level 1, £5000 for Level 5, the "maximum". There is purportedly a Level 6 at £25000 which as far as I know is not actually mentioned in these Acts so not too sure where it derives its “authority” from...

The Scottish Govt gives an explanation (crucial bit emboldened) of why Level 3, £1000, is the most common seen:

“Level 3 is appropriate when an offence poses a threat to property or health and safety, which is not sufficiently immediate and dangerous to merit more. It is also the normal maximum penalty for obstructing a person performing a statutory duty, although a higher penalty can be justified when there are valid reasons why obstruction of particular officials would be especially undesirable. It is commonly the penalty for serious nuisances and is also used for serious breaches of administrative procedures, perhaps motivated by financial or other reward.”

Now, I imagine they chose £1000 for the simple reason that it's a sweet spot - not too little and not too much (at least to their eyes). The fun comes in making it cost them more than £1000 to get you to pay up, of course…

Regards

TSL

PS: And you don’t have to answer this at all, I’m just curious and no offence intended… What’s Mrs Ranty’s viewpoint on this…? Or should the “shopping day” explain that one? ;-)

Pesky Anonymous said...

I would like to echo Harry Hook:

"Cap'n, more than anything, these 'simple' everyday examples of direct dealings with TPTB provide an inspiration to those watching from the touchline". .... "if you manage to avoid any penalty, thousands of people will ask "what's going on 'ere?" and take LR a lot more seriously."

Well done Captain.
Keep on walking the walk.
The only way to lead is to lead by example.

Anonymous said...

"obstructing a person performing a statutory duty"

So do people in the UK need to answer and provide info for the UK electoral role then? Can they decline to answer/provide info sought?

After all the 'power to require' is given to the registration officer. Which is all well and good. This does not actually mean UK people must provide the information sought does it?

Anonymous said...

@Anon at 01.22

I posted a comment about the electoral register earlier but included too many links - if it made it through I think it's in the Captain's spam bucket. (Sorry Captain!)

I think when it is "freed" it will show up somewhere around Newsboycap's post at 23.40.

"So do people in the UK need to answer and provide info for the UK electoral role then? Can they decline to answer/provide info sought?"

My earlier post has more detail but basically this is the case: the duty is on the electoral officer to complete and maintain the Register and to that end he/she can "require" us to provide information. If we provide false info or "do not comply" - i.e. actively refuse to provide anything - then we "commit an offence" - and as that "offence" is prevention of statutory duty then the Level 3 fine kicks in.

However you cannot commit an "offence" if no contact is made (same as with the Census). They can't convict a closed door.

The fines are always for us "preventing" or "obstructing" THEM in the pursuit of THEIR duty. Neat trick, is it not?

There are of course several ways this stupidity can, at the very least, be "questioned".

Regards

TSL

bollixed said...

http://blog.mises.org/18652/tom-woods-on-the-wall-street-protests/

Bringing this in from left (or right field) I know, but definitely worth watching and digesting. The question we all have to answer is "why are we doing this?". And the level of ignorance out there economically among the sovereign/freeman/whatever ranks can be quite breath-taking.

We all have to decide if what we want is MORE or LESS govt. There is a very persuasive argument that more government is what created all this financial trouble.

There is no more left, right, or middle. Corporations don't understand these concepts and it is corporation that we live in. Not a country. A corrupted corporation hiding behind the veneer of a Constitutional Monarchy.

I'd be interested to hear folk's views after watching this 3/4 hour discussion. 2 of my favourite speakers engaged in a discussion on my favourite topic. Is it still legal to have this much untaxed fun?? :)

bollixed said...

With reference to some posts, above:

Everyone has to realise that you are not the Living Trust/Cestui Trust/Artificial Entity/Personal Corporation/whatever. Some seem to have grasped this but others seem to have problems with the concept.

Pose yourself this question - can I prove to myself beyond all doubt that I am who I say I am?

Seriously, try it. You can't. I can PROVE you can't prove it! Any connection between you and the State, any resulting implication of consent is MERELY PRESUMED. That's all. Presumed. Why are we defending ourselves when the core of problem means the PTB should be on the defensive to prove to us that they have any fucking authority over us men and women. They own the civil identity we sport as a Name. No point getting sidetracked into arguments with middlemen about who owns it. They do. You will lose that one but they'll have some fun slapping you back into place while you are losing. Why do people get hung up on this simple concept?

Stay out of the courts!

Can they take an alleged Person to court? No! Where does it say that a free man or woman has any obligation (look up that word!!) to civil jurisdiction (look up that word!!!)? The UK is nothing more than a legal jurisdiction. Not a country. Not a nation. Not a people. Same with the dratted EU. Our Union Jack flag is merely a statement of jurisdiction. What do you think flags are for? Stop using them. The coat of arms is a statement of the military forces available to one group...bearing arms! Oh....I'll stop there. Could go on a lot longer on this subject.

I was reading something a few weeks back where someone phoned up the home office asking where they assumed he had given consent and the girl said "by living in the UK you consent to be governed". Therein lies a dictatorship and a worrying future for us all. This is a warning shot across our bows.

I take you up on your kind offer CR, to post an article. Give me a couple of weeks as we are working on something tasty and then we'll give you first whiff of it.

Clue: A Trust (courts are a constructive trust) can't be formed if the Object (The Beneficiary) cannot be clearly identified. Read again what I've said about the presumed identity. No Trust formed. No court.

Have fun with that!! You're welcome. ;)

Pesky Anonymous said...

"However you cannot commit an "offence" if no contact is made (same as with the Census). They can't convict a closed door."

Great information TSL. Thanks for that. It's all I need.
Usually I wait for the 3rd or 4th reminder (the one threatening legal action) and then cave in and return it.
Now I will follow my census principle: Do absolutely nothing until the summons lands on the doormat. Then trot along and say "I'm frightfully sorry. Where do I sign?"
Nothing to lose. Case closed.

Hiding from the knock? Childish maybe, but fun nevertheless. I always did like a good game of cowboys and indians.

georgesilver said...

Dear Ranty. I do see your point and I know it's not just to avoid a speeding ticket. I was probably a bit flippant in my last post because I too must be fed-up with "money-grabbers". Let me try to put it another way. Terrorists always seem to make the mistake of attacking ordinary people who are mostly innocent. They rarely go for the actual people who are in charge of the system The only time the system is attacked is when it seems to be an inside job to further a clamp-down with more rules.
It seems to me that the "system" must be attacked using it's own tools and rules.
The only way a mass movement will be gotten off the ground is when there are lawyers trained in the principals that you espouse. It's only when enough ordinary people take this route and are defended by lawyers steeped in the intricacies of what you are and others are trying to do that anything will start to happen. You may see your stand as a way to defeat the enemy but you only win a small battle for yourself which then has to be repeated over and over again without any effect on the "system".
Why not put your obvious knowledge to use with a group of other knowledgeable people and try to get an organisation going that will defend ordinary people. Once the man in the street has the option to use people like yourself I think the "system" will start having heart-attacks in growing numbers.

James Mackay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Mackay said...

Hello CR!

I've literally just started a blog with some similarity's to this! It's still in it's infancy but it's called sharesometruth.co.nr. Feel free to check it out. I'm currently fighting off some debt's with payday loans and banks and will be using it to publicise my experience with it all.

You mentioned in this post of an oath you made 3 years ago, could you direct me to the post with this on? I realise it's something you've done to protect/exclude you in some way from "law's" and alike.